David R. Aston

The court issued supplementary reasons to clarify the precise start date and length of cohabitation for spousal support calculations.

The applicant contended cohabitation began in January 1992, while the respondent asserted May 1995.

The court determined that cohabitation commenced in October or November 1994, resulting in a cohabitation period of 21.5 years.

This clarification was deemed necessary because the length of cohabitation impacts the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) "without children" formula, which became relevant after child support obligations ended.

This family law trial addressed property division and spousal support for unmarried spouses after a 20+ year cohabitation.

The court found a "joint family venture" existed from late 1994, recognizing the applicant's significant non-financial contributions and career sacrifices.

The family home and joint investments were ordered to be equally divided, with the respondent paying the applicant an equalization payment.

The court imputed income to the applicant for spousal support purposes due to inconsistent job search efforts post-separation, but also acknowledged her past caregiving responsibilities.

Indefinite spousal support was awarded to the applicant at the midpoint of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, and child support termination dates were confirmed.

The applicant, an unlicensed cemetery owner, sought judicial review of an order by the Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario directing it not to interfere with the interment of a deceased individual.

The applicant argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine interment rights and denied it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar had the statutory authority to ensure orderly burials and incidentally determine interment rights based on reasonable evidence, without breaching procedural fairness.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding the respondent made reasonable efforts to mitigate, alleging she fabricated records of online job applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to meet its onus to prove a failure to mitigate or fabrication of evidence.

The court also upheld the motion judge's determination that summary judgment was appropriate.

The Attorney General appealed an order requiring the production of an entire Crown brief from an ongoing criminal prosecution for use in a pending child protection case.

The motion judge had ordered broad disclosure because the Crown's Wagg Unit requested an indefinite adjournment to review the brief, which would have delayed the child protection trial.

On appeal, the parties reached a consent resolution requiring immediate production of the child's video statement and other witness statements, while giving the Crown 30 days to screen the remainder of the brief.

The Divisional Court approved the resolution and emphasized that a 24-week delay for Wagg vetting is unacceptable in child protection cases, which must be prioritized.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent order denying a review.

The Board found that the landlord required the rental unit in good faith for his own occupation and that the tenants failed to establish the existence of a three-year lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's factual conclusions were supported by evidence, including the landlord leaving his personal belongings in the unit, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the Board's treatment of hearsay evidence.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $2,000.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated February 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs of $10,000 all-inclusive to the responding defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Homewood defendants and $1,000 to the defendant doctor.

The City of Mississauga sought judicial review of an IPC order requiring the disclosure of an electronic spreadsheet containing personal information of over 11,000 voters from the 2018 municipal election.

The IPC found that disclosure was expressly authorized by section 88(5) of the Municipal Elections Act, which overrides the privacy exemption in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's reliance on binding precedent and its distinction between access and use restrictions to be reasonable.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating its tenancy because the landlords sold the premises and the purchaser required it for their own use.

The tenant argued that the landlords failed to pay the required one month's rent in compensation under s. 49.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act because the payment was made before the Notice to Terminate was served.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not require the compensation to be paid after the notice is served, provided it is paid prior to the termination date.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated because he took personal emergency leave and made a harassment complaint.

The Board found the termination was solely due to ongoing performance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test for reprisal, reasonably assessed the evidence, and did not deny the applicant procedural fairness in its evidentiary rulings.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant mother wrongfully removed the parties' three children from their habitual residence in Nigeria to Ontario.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered the children returned to Nigeria under s. 40, finding no serious harm would result.

On appeal, the mother argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the serious harm test, Nigerian law, and the requirements of s. 40.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and correctly applied the law regarding jurisdiction and return orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her claim for non-earner benefits.

The LAT Act limits appeals to questions of law, but the applicant sought judicial review on issues of mixed fact and law regarding her mental capacity.

Applying the framework from Yatar, the Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review where the legislature intended to limit recourse to the courts.

The plaintiff purchased a property from the defendants and subsequently discovered the wood foundation was rotting.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the foundation issues were patent defects that were discoverable by the plaintiff's home inspector, but the plaintiff chose to waive the inspection condition.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the defendants knew of the defect or actively concealed it.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed her complaint that her former employer terminated her as a reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board had found she was terminated for cause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board's Vice-Chair.

Applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, the Court held that the Board's decision was logical, well-reasoned, and based on an extensive review of the evidence.

The moving party husband brought a motion for temporary spousal support ten years after the parties separated from a 30-year marriage.

The husband had been intentionally underemployed for the past decade, earning a modest income from a bicycle repair business, while the responding party wife earned approximately $100,000 annually and had assumed the family debt.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding entitlement but ordered temporary spousal support of $1,000 per month.

This amount was set below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to reflect the husband's failure to make reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency.

The applicant cattle producer sought judicial review of a decision by Agricorp, which accepted a recommendation from the Business Risk Management Review Committee that weight gain for cattle occurring outside Ontario was ineligible for benefits under the Risk Management Program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Agricorp's interpretation of the governing Order in Council and Guidelines was reasonable, as the provisions consistently emphasized 'production in Ontario'.

The court also found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions and the Committee's reliance on the definition of 'Farmer' did not constitute a new issue.