David R. Aston

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.

The mother brought a motion to enforce prior orders for parenting time and family reconciliation therapy, alleging the father alienated their 17-year-old daughter.

The daughter, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, adamantly refused to participate in therapy or see her mother.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to enforce the orders, finding it would be futile and counterproductive given the child's age and entrenched views.

However, finding the father partly responsible for the therapy's failure, the court ordered him to reimburse the mother for half the therapy costs as a sanction for non-compliance.

The applicant, an advocacy group for strippers, brought a judicial review application challenging COVID-19 regulations that temporarily closed strip clubs in Stage 2 and Stage 3 areas.

Before the application was heard, the impugned regulations were revoked and replaced, allowing strip clubs to operate with safety requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case on the merits as the live controversy had ended and there was no cogent reason to depart from the general rule against hearing moot cases.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Somji J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay agreed costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The parties failed to comply with a case management direction requiring them to upload an agreement on costs or costs outlines prior to the hearing.

The responding party requested to submit an offer to settle prior to the costs award.

The court declined to permit further materials on costs, emphasizing that parties cannot disregard case management directions and that it is inefficient for leave panels to reconstitute to consider costs.

The court fixed costs of the motion at $2,500 payable by the moving party to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable by the moving party to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to arrange an appeal schedule.

The applicant commenced an application that was abandoned after early case management teleconferences.

The respondent sought approximately $8,000 in costs for the abandoned application.

The Divisional Court noted that its practice is not to award costs for case management attendances unless there is litigation misconduct, and the case management judge had not awarded costs.

Finding the respondent's costs claim unreasonable and excessive for the minor steps taken, the court declined to award any costs for the abandoned application or the costs motion.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Diamond dated June 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the agreed amount of $6,352.86 to the responding party.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of decisions by the Justices of the Peace Review Council finding her guilty of judicial misconduct and recommending her removal from office.

The misconduct stemmed from an article she published criticizing the bail system and making personal attacks on Crown Attorneys.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Review Council's decisions on misconduct, disposition, and costs compensation were reasonable and did not violate her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, which denied his request to stay a discipline hearing pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground of prematurity.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify reviewing the interlocutory decision before the administrative proceedings had run their full course, noting that the applicant's concerns about revealing his criminal defence strategy were generic and did not constitute irreparable harm.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from a city bus crash.

The Certification Judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the plaintiff's strategic choice to pursue complex systemic negligence claims while ignoring direct claims against the bus driver and the city as owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Certification Judge's discretionary preferability analysis.

Leave to appeal the costs order of the certification motion was also denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Belleville Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension to serve a notice of hearing respecting misconduct allegations.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, arguing the application was filed outside the 30-day time limit and was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground of prematurity.

The court held that the decision to extend the time was interlocutory and that courts are reluctant to intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant's argument regarding procedural fairness and inadequate reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying intervention.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. dated June 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated June 8, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim and the co-defendant municipality's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff, who had a stop sign, entered the intersection and was struck by the defendant, who had the right of way.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report unreliable because it assumed the plaintiff stopped 14 meters back from the intersection, which was contrary to evidence and common sense.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision, and granted the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its poultry service workers were not exempt from the Employment Standards Act under the farm worker exemption.

The Board had concluded that because the employees provided services to multiple farms, they were not employed 'on a farm' within the meaning of the exemption.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation was consistent with its past decisions and struck a reasonable balance between the purposes of the Act and the exemption.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) upholding the Director's proposal to refuse to renew its residential care licence.

The LAT had excluded the appellant's proposed expert evidence regarding fire safety and the standard of care for treatment foster homes, citing efficiency and lack of necessity.

The Divisional Court found that the excluded evidence was central to the case and clearly relevant, and that its exclusion amounted to a palpable and overriding error that prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed, the LAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Koehnen.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the Mintz Family Group and $7,500 to SRTS LLP.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated December 2, 2020.

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