Deena Baltman

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the plaintiff's action and a subsequent motion to restore it to the trial list.

The defendants sought fees and disbursements.

The court applied Rule 57 criteria, noting the serious allegations made by the plaintiff, numerous delays caused by the plaintiff's handling of the case, and the plaintiff's rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay specific amounts to the Bank of Montreal and York Regional Police, in addition to previously awarded motion costs.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding he engaged in professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Tribunal found the appellant defrauded OHIP by billing for thousands of tests he did not provide, received kickbacks for referring patients to a cardiac clinic, and conducted medically unnecessary tests.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting evidence obtained during a search of his clinic, relying on the College's expert, and failing to assist him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings or factual findings, and upheld the license revocation as a fit penalty for intentional billing fraud.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent, as well as the subsequent review decision upholding the eviction.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she allegedly did not receive the notice of hearing, was told by the landlord's agent not to attend, and was denied access to duty counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court noted the LTB's factual findings regarding service of the notice and the appellant's lack of diligence were not appealable, and an official transcript refuted her claim about being denied duty counsel.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder at work.

The Tribunal had expanded his initial entitlement to include bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear but upheld the termination of benefits as of September 2015 and denied entitlement for left shoulder impingement and subsequent surgery.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, intelligible, and transparent, as they were supported by the evidentiary record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace on long-term disability, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommending her removal from office.

The Council found she committed judicial misconduct by practicing law without a license or insurance on three occasions.

The applicant argued the hearing panel breached procedural fairness by not granting a further adjournment and that the penalty was unreasonable due to her cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing was procedurally fair and the recommendation for removal was reasonable given the lack of reliable medical evidence supporting a cognitive deficit and the severity of the misconduct.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not satisfy the Palmer test as it was not relevant to the test for granting leave to appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal and requests for ancillary relief were also dismissed.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore his action to the trial list after it was struck for delay.

The action, which arose from a 2012 incident alleging anti-Black racism during a fraud investigation, had been administratively dismissed in 2019 and struck from the trial list in 2020.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the extensive delays, which were largely due to counsel's inattention.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendants would suffer prejudice due to fading memories over the ten-year period since the incident.

The motion was denied and the action was dismissed.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on multiple counts arising from exploitation of one complainant in the sex trade, including procuring, receiving a financial benefit from sexual services, human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from trafficking, assault, forcible confinement, choking, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, and sexual assault.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable notwithstanding memory gaps associated with trauma, rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and unreliable, and applied the W.(D.) framework in assessing whether a reasonable doubt arose.

In interpreting the procuring and trafficking provisions, the court relied on appellate authority recognizing that control may be psychological, need not be constant or absolute, and may be inferred from directive behaviour, coercion, violence, financial control, and exploitation of vulnerability.

Counts relating to a second alleged victim were dismissed for insufficient evidence, and the withholding of documents count was dismissed at the Crown's request for lack of evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a KGB statement from an alleged victim of human trafficking who had disappeared and was unavailable to testify.

The defence conceded necessity but disputed threshold reliability.

The court ruled the statement inadmissible, finding that the inability to cross-examine the declarant was a significant obstacle, particularly given her potential motive to fabricate, as she gave the statement while under arrest and her charges were dropped immediately afterward.

The court also found the corroborative evidence insufficient to establish substantive reliability.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $292,000 in damages for oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The trial judge found the appellant engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to keep proper financial records, using company funds for personal expenses, and misappropriating funds through an undisclosed arrangement with another company.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of oppression and the damages awarded for loss of profits and personal expenses.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the $182,000 award for loss of business value, finding it was an error in principle because the parties had agreed to wind up the business and distribute net assets, making book value or fair market value irrelevant.

The defendant, L.R., faced two charges of sexual assault.

The first count involved sexual intercourse where the complainant alleged intoxication and lack of consent, while the defendant asserted consent.

The second count involved an alleged attempt to force oral sex.

The court analyzed the complainant's capacity to consent, considering her alcohol tolerance, a pre-existing sleep disorder, and video evidence.

The court found the complainant had the capacity to consent and did, in fact, consent to the sexual activity in the first count.

The court also found the second allegation highly improbable.

Consequently, both charges were dismissed.

The applicant, a dentist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had upheld a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requiring the applicant to appear for a caution and complete a remediation program regarding record-keeping, informed consent, and case work-up.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused further written submissions after the matter was remitted by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which denied his request to amend his application and dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and colour by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the failure to hire with the applicant's age, race, or colour.

The court also found the Tribunal reasonably denied the request to amend the application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that no costs be awarded.

The defendants 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 and awarded agreed costs of $15,000 to the responding plaintiff.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving party and the City of Toronto.

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, one of four individuals charged with first-degree murder, brought applications to sever his trial from his co-accused or, alternatively, to admit a co-accused's post-arrest statement as hearsay.

The applicant, alleged to be the second getaway driver, sought to rely on the co-accused's statement that he was highly intoxicated on the morning of the murder to support defences of lack of intent and abandonment.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding the proposed evidence was largely inadmissible self-serving hearsay and lacked proximity to the offence.

The court also dismissed the hearsay application, concluding the co-accused was a highly unreliable source, the statement contained double hearsay, lacked corroboration, and its admission would be highly prejudicial to the other co-accused.

The offender, a 21-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced for possessing a loaded firearm and 85 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the deadly nature of fentanyl and the danger posed by the loaded firearm during a police raid.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior record, supportive family, and the impact of anti-Black racism and socio-economic disadvantage on his background.

The court also factored in harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

A total sentence of 6 years was imposed after applying the totality principle, with 55 months of enhanced pre-sentence credit, leaving 17 months to serve.

During a first-degree murder trial, the accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of a GPS tracking device found on the deceased's vehicle.

The accused argued there was insufficient evidence connecting them to the device.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the device, including the presence of the tracking app on cellphones found near two of the accused upon arrest.

The court admitted the GPS data from the Greater Toronto Area but excluded data from Montreal, finding the latter had low probative value and was potentially prejudicial.