David R. Aston

The parties brought competing motions to change support provisions in a divorce judgment issued in 2000.

The applicant sought the return of his passport and temporary relief from existing child and spousal support obligations after losing his employment and receiving employment insurance benefits.

The respondent opposed the passport release due to concerns the applicant would leave the jurisdiction and avoid support obligations.

The court accepted evidence that the applicant had made bona fide efforts to secure employment and had limited prospects in Canada.

The court granted the passport return and temporarily suspended spousal support while reducing child support based on the applicant’s current employment insurance income.

The applicants appealed the assessment of numerous commercial investment properties, arguing they should be assessed in the farm property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Tribunal stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the phrase 'land is owned by' in s. 8(2)3 of the regulation includes both beneficial and legal ownership.

The Divisional Court applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and concluded that the phrase is restricted to legal ownership, relying on the presumption of consistent expression and the presumption against tautology within the legislative scheme.

The Township of Tiny appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles under the Boundaries Act, which confirmed the westerly boundary of a beachfront cottage lot to be the water's edge of Lake Huron.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Director's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the commercial reality of the original subdivision plan, which intended to reserve the beach for the use of back lot owners and the public.

The appeal was allowed, and the boundaries were confirmed as depicted on the original Plan of Subdivision, which set the boundary at a monumented straight line inland from the water's edge.

The applicant, the president of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Association's Council to accept the resignation of a councillor.

The councillor had submitted an unequivocal resignation via email but later attempted to retract it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that at common law, the resignation of a director of a corporation without share capital is effective upon delivery and does not require acceptance by the corporation.

Furthermore, once delivered, the resignation cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the remaining directors.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission suspending its liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including allegations of procedural fairness, improper admission of evidence, incorrect burden of proof, improper adverse inference, and failure to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to any of the grounds and concluding that the Board's reasons, while sparse, were sufficient.

The appellants appealed a decision declining to certify a class action regarding an alleged design defect in digital cameras that caused an 'E18' error message.

The motions judge had struck the evidence of the appellants' proposed expert on the basis that he lacked the necessary qualifications in camera design.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the exclusion of the expert evidence or the conclusion that there was no basis in fact for the common issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of Revenue's decision denying their request for an extension of time to file Retail Sales Tax returns.

The applicants had been assessed for unpaid taxes and failed to file a Notice of Objection within the 180-day limitation period.

Seven years later, they requested an extension to file late returns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot because the four-year limitation period for the Minister to reassess taxes had expired, meaning an extension would have no practical effect.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion because the applicants had failed to utilize the statutory remedies available to them.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board regarding the quantum of compensation awarded for sexual assaults he suffered as a child.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by reducing his awards for income loss and pain and suffering due to other contributing factors, and by capping his future therapy costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's consideration of other contributing factors was an unreviewable finding of fact, the Board properly exercised its broad discretion in assessing pain and suffering, and the appellant could apply for a variation if future therapy costs exceeded the cap.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment resolving a deadlock in a family-owned ice cream business.

The trial judge ordered the majority shareholder to sell her shares to the minority shareholder for fair market value.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge ignored the majority shareholder's reasonable expectations, her security interest in the business, and the minority shareholder's alleged misappropriation of a corporate opportunity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, including the conclusion that the appellants were more responsible for the deadlock.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that renewed its franchise agreement with the Town of Aylmer for a three-year term instead of the requested twenty-year term.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and jurisdiction by relying on prior orders that were subsequently set aside and by failing to properly consider the public interest and adverse impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was discretionary and fact-intensive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any extricable error of law or jurisdiction.

The City of Kitchener sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of certain records relating to a land purchase and reducing the search fee charged to the requestor.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decisions regarding the fee reduction and the rejection of the third-party information exemption as reasonable.

The Court also agreed that communications between the City Solicitor and the third-party developer were not protected by solicitor-client privilege, but allowed the application in part on consent to exempt specific internal communications that had been incorrectly categorized.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the Director's determination that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding a new medical report from her family doctor and by distinguishing between 'ache' and 'pain'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not err in law in affording no weight to the medical report as it did not relate to the appellant's condition at the time of the Director's decision, and that the Tribunal's interpretation of the appellant's evidence regarding her symptoms was a matter of weighing evidence, not an error of law.

The appellant father appealed a final order requiring him to pay prospective and retroactive child support, arguing the motions judge erred in finding his income, providing inadequate reasons, and misapplying the tests for retroactive support and undue hardship.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the income determination and held the reasons were adequate.

While the motions judge conflated the 'undue hardship' test for prospective support with the 'hardship' factor for retroactive support, the Divisional Court applied the correct test and upheld the retroactive award due to the father's long history of underpayment and failure to disclose income.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for appealing and for leave to appeal an order that removed his former solicitor from the record and granted the solicitor a lien and costs.

The Divisional Court found that the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness at the original hearing, as he was not served with the motion materials in advance and the motions judge signed an order containing provisions not discussed during the hearing.

The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal, noting the solicitor's contingency fee agreement did not comply with the Solicitors Act.

The appellant appealed a Master's order striking his Statement of Defence for failing to fully comply with undertakings and prior court orders.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen, finding that the Master's decision was supported by the evidence and involved no error of law or principle.

The appellant had been given multiple warnings and opportunities to comply but failed to do so.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that required them to pay $20,000 as security for costs.

The motion was brought well past the four-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.16(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court declined to extend the time for the motion, noting the plaintiffs' repeated failure to meet deadlines, the lack of evidence explaining the delay, and the prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

Eight police officers sought judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Police Services Board allowing the Chief of Police to delay serving Notices of Hearing for public complaints arising from the G20 summit.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application for prematurity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interlocutory administrative decision.

The court noted the officers had an adequate alternative remedy to raise the issue of prejudice caused by delay through an abuse of process motion before the hearing officer.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision to take no further action on his complaint against a psychiatrist.

The applicant argued that HPARB should have held an oral hearing rather than a written review, alleging a failure to accommodate his hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably exercised its discretion to proceed in writing after attempts to accommodate the applicant's hearing impairment at an oral hearing were unsuccessful, and the applicant failed to show good reason why a written hearing was inappropriate.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer terminating its ability to bill the public drug program due to alleged fraudulent and unsubstantiated claims.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because it was not given sufficient time to provide evidence addressing the discrepancies.

The Divisional Court held that, given the severe economic consequences to the applicant's business, the duty of fairness required granting the applicant a short additional period to submit supporting evidence.

The application was allowed in part, and the applicant was granted an extension to make further submissions while a stay of the termination remained in place.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding a finding of professional misconduct and a six-month suspension.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's breach of a bail condition prohibiting him from practicing criminal law without supervision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Law Society's jurisdiction, the application of the civil standard of proof, the assessment of credibility, or the rejection of arguments based on res judicata and abuse of process.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.