David R. Aston

The appellant moved before the Divisional Court to review an order dismissing her motion to waive the fee for a transcript required for her Small Claims Court appeal.

The appellant alternatively sought to proceed without a transcript or have the respondent pay for it.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that there is no statutory authority to waive transcript fees under the Administration of Justice Act.

The court also held that a transcript was necessary because the appeal was fact-driven, and declined to order the respondent to pay for it as the case did not meet the test for interim costs.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a lawyer facing misconduct allegations, applied for judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel's interlocutory decision dismissing his jurisdictional challenge.

The Law Society argued the application was premature.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the statutory appeal mechanism provided an adequate alternative remedy and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention and fragmentation of the administrative process.

The application was quashed.

The mother sought costs following a contested motion regarding child access.

The mother had made an offer to settle that mirrored the final order, except for a restriction on the children's contact with a specific individual and a provision for no costs.

The father had unreasonably insisted on supervised access, necessitating the contested motion.

The court found the mother was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court reduced the costs awarded due to the mother's unreliable evidence and divided success on a motion to strike.

The father was ordered to pay costs fixed at $6,030.53.

The appellant appealed an order determining the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of a joint venture winemaking business.

The appellant argued that all shareholder loans, whether secured or unsecured, should be repaid pro rata based on a shareholders agreement, which would effectively ignore the respondents' collateral mortgage and give the appellant almost all the proceeds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that absent a clear provision to the contrary in the shareholders agreement, secured debts are properly payable in priority to unsecured debt.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against their homeowners' insurance provider for the theft of medical marijuana plants from their backyard.

The insurer had paid out a limited amount under the 'landscaping' extension but denied full coverage under the 'personal property' provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the stolen plants became personal property upon being detached from the ground, they were not 'usual to the ownership or maintenance of a dwelling' as required by the policy.

The landlord defendants appealed an order certifying a class action against them founded on common law negligence following a series of devastating propane explosions.

The appellants argued that as landlords, they owed no duty of care to third parties in the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the landlords had no obligation to act, given allegations that they knew of the highly dangerous propane business and the foreseeable risk of catastrophic harm to nearby residents.

The applicants sponsored family members immigrating to Canada and signed undertakings to provide for their financial needs.

The sponsored family members received social assistance, resulting in debts owed by the applicants to the Province of Ontario.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to enforce the debts, arguing a breach of procedural fairness because the Ministry provided boilerplate responses and no proper reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Mavi, which held that the duty of fairness in these debt collection matters is minimal and does not require reasons.

The court found the Ministry considered individual circumstances and complied with the required procedural fairness obligations.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to reinstate his former spouse as a beneficiary under his extended medical benefit coverage.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellant complied with the order, rendering the appeal moot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting it also lacked jurisdiction as the order was not final, and awarded $5,000 in costs to the respondent, reduced due to both counsel's failure to recognize the appeal's futility earlier.

The applicant, an economic development corporation, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner finding it to be an 'institution' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The Commissioner ordered the applicant to respond to a freedom of information request.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's original decision, finding it was reasonable to interpret the relevant regulation as capturing the applicant, despite the repeal of the underlying statutory provision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following a successful application involving a claim for adverse possession, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable by the respondent.

Although the applicant was entitled to costs, the court found the bill of costs claimed on a partial indemnity basis to be excessive.

The court noted that much of the legal work predated the applicant’s property ownership and would have been incurred regardless of opposition, and that the respondent—who was self‑represented—acted reasonably and did not materially increase the applicant’s costs.

The court also criticized the involvement of numerous legal staff and duplication of work.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order directing it to cease collecting personal information from wine club members and to destroy previously collected information.

The LCBO argued the IPC breached procedural fairness by issuing the order without prior notice that such a remedy was being contemplated.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the IPC failed to provide adequate notice of the potential consequences of the privacy complaint investigation, thereby depriving the LCBO of a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue of remedy.

The IPC's order was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they contravened the Securities Act by trading in securities without registration or a prospectus, and by misrepresenting that the securities would be listed on an exchange.

The appellants argued the transactions were good faith loans exempt from the Act, and raised numerous procedural and fairness arguments including abuse of process, bias, and failure to disclose evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's conclusion that the transactions were disguised sales was reasonable, and rejecting all procedural and fairness challenges.

The tenant appealed an eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board applied an incorrect or incomplete legal test by only considering the discretionary provision under s. 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and failing to consider the mandatory provision under s. 83(3).

The Board had explicitly found that the landlord substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment, which could constitute a serious breach under s. 83(3).

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the same board member for reconsideration.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal portions of an earlier order concerning security for child support and related procedural matters involving a foreign support order.

The court considered whether failure to register a German support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 constituted a jurisdictional defect invalidating the earlier order.

The court held that any deficiencies in complying with the statutory procedure were procedural irregularities capable of being cured nunc pro tunc and not jurisdictional prerequisites.

The motion was characterized as a collateral attack on an earlier order that had not been appealed, and the court found no basis to interfere with the discretion exercised by the earlier judge.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The respondent Board brought a motion for directions in advance of an appeal, seeking to redact personal and confidential information concerning the victim from both its Reasons and the Hearing Brief.

The appellant, who was found by the Board to have sexually assaulted the victim, opposed the redactions.

The Divisional Court held that the Board must provide an unredacted copy of its Reasons to ensure transparency and procedural fairness, but upheld the majority of the redactions in the Hearing Brief to protect the victim's privacy interests.

Following an earlier endorsement in which the court reserved jurisdiction regarding the wording of the formal order and did not address costs, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing procedural steps for settling the form of the order and determining costs.

The applicant submitted a draft order and costs submissions.

The court directed the respondent to provide written submissions on the form of the order and costs within 20 days.

The court retained jurisdiction to determine the issue of costs after receiving the respondent’s submissions.

The successful appellant sought costs of the trial and the appeal.

The respondents argued that no trial costs should be awarded because the judgment amount fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting the Small Claims Court limit was $10,000 when the claim was issued, the defendants had launched a $65,000 counterclaim, and the plaintiff had made a reasonable early offer to settle for $15,000.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the appellant trial costs fixed at $25,000 and appeal costs fixed at $10,000.

The defendant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court default judgment.

The court found that the defendant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to present any evidence of a defence to the claim.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Following an appeal involving a dispute between a corporate appellant and the provincial Minister of Revenue, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The parties agreed on a fixed amount for legal fees and disbursements payable to the respondent.

The court endorsed the agreement and ordered that the respondent recover the agreed costs.

The decision reflects the court’s approval of negotiated costs following the disposition of the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board and a subsequent review decision.

The presiding Board member had conducted an independent and secret investigation of facts.

The Divisional Court found this to be a fundamental breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, rendering the member without jurisdiction.

Leave to appeal was granted.