David R. Aston

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa that required him to pay parking charges in addition to his rent-geared-to-income.

The applicant argued that parking charges must be included in the geared-to-income rent calculation under the Housing Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the Housing Services Act does not authorize adding parking charges to geared-to-income rent, it does not preclude a separate contractual agreement for parking under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that any dispute regarding the validity of the parking charges or the tenancy agreement must be determined by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellants, a landlord and his corporation, appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring the corporation to pay the tenant $5,829.91.

The individual appellant argued the corporation was not properly served with the notice of hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on a threshold issue, noting that under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a corporation must be represented by a lawyer unless leave is granted.

As the individual appellant was self-represented, had not sought leave, and had no standing to speak for the corporation, the appeal was not properly before the court and was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution was issued because the applicant's clinic used patient and staff testimonials in its advertising, contrary to the regulations under the Medicine Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate and the interpretation of the regulation prohibiting testimonials was reasonable.

The applicant company sought judicial review of an interlocutory procedural order made by an arbitrator in an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The order required the company to produce documents found to be arguably relevant and declined to bifurcate the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating its disinclination to intervene in ongoing labour relations processes absent exceptional circumstances.

This family law application, initiated in 2010, proceeded to trial in 2017 to resolve outstanding issues of equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, s.7 child support expenses, and a lump sum spousal support claim.

The court made specific findings on asset valuations for equalization, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

Post-separation adjustments were also confirmed as owed by the applicant.

For child support, the respondent was ordered to contribute to specific extraordinary expenses, including music lessons, tutoring, art therapy, and certain uninsured prescription costs.

A lump sum spousal support of $12,000 was awarded to the applicant, credited against her payments to the respondent, recognizing her efforts to regain self-sufficiency after a significant back injury and surgery post-separation.

A divorce order was also granted.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 19-year marriage.

The court determined issues of equalization, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had hidden assets and imputed income to her due to undisclosed cash from a business.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $139,690.81.

Retrospective child support was offset, resulting in the applicant owing the respondent $1,191.85, while the respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support and spousal support.

This costs endorsement followed a high-conflict custody trial that settled on its seventh day.

The respondent mother sought substantial costs, and the court, applying Family Law Rule 24, determined she was more successful on the weighty issues despite mixed success on others.

The court considered the three purposes of costs (indemnity, settlement, sanction) and the parties' litigation conduct, including the father's pursuit of "unfounded" allegations and his initiative in settling.

The applicant father was ordered to pay $50,000 in costs to the respondent mother.

The mother, father, and the maternal aunt and uncle (the McCormicks) brought competing motions regarding the residence of the three children.

The father, who shared joint custody with the McCormicks, sought permission to relocate with the children from London to Lindsay for employment.

The mother and the McCormicks opposed the move and sought to have the children placed in their care.

The court granted the father's motion to relocate, finding it in the children's best interests as it allowed the father to secure employment and remain the primary caregiver, subject to modifications in transportation and access schedules.

The motions by the mother and the McCormicks were dismissed.

VIA Rail appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the property tax assessment of the Ottawa railway station for the years 2009 to 2012.

VIA argued that because its national passenger railway service operates at a loss, the station suffers from 100% economic obsolescence and should be assessed at a nominal value.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision to assess the property using the replacement cost method less depreciation, finding that the Board reasonably concluded there was no empirical evidence to support 100% economic obsolescence given the station's ongoing use and value as a railway facility.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order to vary access provisions to allow her to relocate with the child to Kelowna, B.C., citing dire financial straits and employment opportunities.

The respondent father had also brought motions for joint custody, a shared parenting schedule, and a child assessment.

The court granted the mother's request for temporary relocation, finding it to be in the child's best interests, particularly given the father's limited recent involvement and the impending trial.

The father's motions for joint custody and a shared parenting schedule were adjourned, and his other requests were dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's refusal to process their application to close and purchase an unopened road allowance abutting their waterfront property.

The applicants alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, claiming the municipality favoured their neighbours' competing application and failed to prevent unauthorized alterations to the land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the municipality's decision to refuse the sale until the competing interests of all abutting owners were resolved was reasonable.

The court concluded there was no legal right to compel the municipality to sell the road allowance and found no evidence of bad faith.

The grandparents brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed their appeal for delay.

The underlying child protection case involved a constitutional challenge to the definition of 'Indian or native person' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Divisional Court panel found that the motion judge erred by not considering the merits of the constitutional challenge, which had been properly included in the trial judge's reconsideration.

The panel concluded the appeal had a real chance of success and set aside the order dismissing the appeal, allowing the grandparents to perfect their appeal.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order dismissing his motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision involved questions of mixed fact and law and was entitled to deference.

The court held that the motion judge appropriately considered the factual disputes and the necessity of a trial for other issues, such as mental distress and defamation, and found no palpable and overriding error.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a $1 million life insurance policy was part of the deceased's estate and available for dependant support claims under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The deceased had been ordered on consent to maintain his former spouse as the irrevocable beneficiary of the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deceased still 'owned' the policy under s. 72(1)(f) of the SLRA despite the irrevocable designation.

The Court further held that the former spouse did not have 'creditor rights' under s. 72(7) because the designation did not create a security interest, and she was not entitled to damages for breach of contract.

The defendant municipalities sought leave to appeal a Case Management Judge's order requiring them to cease and desist an opt-out campaign directed at class members, which the judge found created undue influence.

The plaintiff class representatives sought leave to cross-appeal, arguing the judge should have ordered the removal of existing communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Case Management Judge's findings or the discretionary remedy granted.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay a temporary order granting the respondent father supervised access to their two children, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The mother objected to the paternal grandmother acting as the access supervisor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to establish irreparable harm to the children or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also found that fresh evidence regarding transitional difficulties during access did not justify staying or varying the order.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding his ineligibility for an enhanced allowance under Peel's Investment and Affordable Housing program.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the eligibility requirement of living in a self-contained unit was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the applicant was given reasons and opportunities to respond.

The court also held that the determination that the applicant's rooming house accommodation was not a self-contained unit was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union and refusing reconsideration.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board failed to contact it by telephone, and that the Board's finding regarding delivery of the certification application was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the procedural fairness argument was not raised before the Board and the Board's decision on delivery was reasonable based on the evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive disclosure and valuation of the applicant husband's family's businesses and a family trust, as well as oral discovery of non-parties.

The court dismissed the requests for corporate and trust valuations for equalization purposes, finding the husband had no ownership interest.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court limited disclosure for income determination purposes to records of personal expenses paid by the business or the husband's parents, and quashed the summonses to non-parties.

The wife was also ordered to produce certain bank statements and records of sold jewelry.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive corporate and trust records, as well as the examination of non-parties, to value the husband's family business and determine his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the request for corporate valuation disclosure, finding the husband had no ownership interest in the business and his interest in a family trust was nil.

The court partially granted disclosure regarding the husband's income, ordering production of credit card statements and particulars of personal expenses paid by the company or his father.

The request to examine non-parties was dismissed as disproportionate, and the summonses were quashed.