Elizabeth C. Sheard

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed five decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had dismissed several claims as statute-barred, refused to extend the limitation period, and dismissed the remaining claims on their merits for failure to provide required information and treatment plans.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and judicial review applications, finding the LAT's decisions were reasonable, contained no errors of law, and did not breach procedural fairness or exhibit bias.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding her entitlement to attendant care benefits and home modifications under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued LAT erred in determining the applicable hourly rates, assessing her need for supervisory care, denying home modifications, and violating her Charter equality rights by distinguishing between mental and physical impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as LAT correctly applied the 1996 Schedule rates, provided adequate reasons for preferring the respondent's expert evidence, and appropriately applied the reasonable and necessary test for home modifications.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of animals from his zoo and ordering him to pay $105,059.35 in care costs.

The applicant argued the Board's decisions were unreasonable due to an absence of evidence, misapprehension of evidence, and failure to consider his expert evidence and legal submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions reasonable and denying the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 20, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on consent, with costs of the leave motion in the cause of the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akazaki J. dated January 2, 2024.

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

The applicant, common-law spouse of the deceased, sought an additional $1 million from the estate based on an alleged secret trust and an order for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The applicant had already received $1 million from the will and cohabitation agreement.

The court dismissed the secret trust claim, finding no clear intention, communication, or acceptance of a trust beyond the existing testamentary provisions.

The dependant support claim was also dismissed, as the court found the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicant, considering her financial independence under the cohabitation agreement, the deceased's lifetime support, and the applicant's current assets, including an imputed $250,000 gift she made to her daughter.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties, the Attorney General of Canada and others, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 21, 2023.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order and requested leave to provide fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court granted leave to provide the fresh evidence and considered it, but ultimately dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering her to repay $29,570.92 in income replacement and attendant care benefits to the respondent insurer due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in applying section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application of legal principles to evidence is a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, which limits appeals to questions of law only.

The plaintiff brought an action against the City for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a snow-covered tree root on private property adjacent to a City sidewalk.

The plaintiff had stepped off the plowed sidewalk to avoid people waiting at a bus stop.

The City moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the fall occurred on private property, the claim was barred by the 10-day notice requirement under the Municipal Act, and there was no gross negligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the late notice and that the City had met its duty of care by plowing the sidewalk.

The Taha Defendants moved to set aside a noting in default and dismiss the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment.

The court found the Taha Defendants' evidence admissible despite being hearsay based on context.

Applying the detailed test for setting aside a noting in default from *Trayanov v. Icetrading Inc.*, the court concluded that the Taha Defendants met the onus, considering the short delay, reasons for delay (financial), complexity of the claim, and arguable defence.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for security for costs, finding it would likely bar the defendants from defending and would unjustly prefer the plaintiffs over existing judgment creditors.

The noting in default was set aside on terms that the Taha Defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs and serve their statement of defence within strict timelines.

The Applicants sought an extension of time under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision, which had dismissed their appeal of a Director's Order regarding environmental contamination.

The Director brought a cross-motion to dismiss the judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Applicants' motion and granted the Director's motion, finding that the Applicants failed to establish apparent grounds for relief and that extending the time would cause substantial prejudice to ongoing Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

Following the issuance of its decision on appeal, the court was informed that the respondent's counsel had fallen ill and could not meet the deadline to serve and file an amended pleading.

The appellants consented to an extension and requested that the requirement for the respondent's approval of the draft order be dispensed with so they could seek leave to appeal.

The court granted the extension and dispensed with the approval requirement.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim against the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board.

The plaintiff alleged he was brutally beaten by police officers and claimed the Chief and Board were liable for negligent training, supervision, and systemic issues.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the allegations against the Board relating to day-to-day operational functions, as the Board's statutory duty is limited to policy.

The court also struck irrelevant after-the-fact allegations but upheld the claims against the Chief and the policy-related claims against the Board.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a grievance arbitrator's decision that granted retroactive statutory holiday benefits to union members for the National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreements only required a day to be 'proclaimed' by the Governor General to become a paid holiday.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the decision, finding the arbitrator's interpretation unreasonable as it failed to consider the parties' mutual intention and led to the absurd result that any symbolic proclamation would create an additional paid holiday.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee six months' pay in lieu of common law notice following a without-cause termination.

The trial judge had found the employment agreement's termination provisions void because the 'for cause' clause violated the Employment Standards Act by contracting out of the statutory standard for wilful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the Waksdale framework to invalidate the entire termination clause and made no palpable or overriding error in assessing the common law notice period using the Bardal factors.

The applicant, Muhammad Iqbal Khan, sought injunctive relief and other orders related to the estate of his deceased former spouse.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali Khan, the estate trustee, brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant and to convert the application to an action.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs, finding the applicant failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on his claims, and converted the application to an action.

The court also granted a limited preservation order for the deceased's former residence but dismissed most of the applicant's requested injunctive relief, including an accounting.

Costs for a previous motion were awarded to the respondent, while costs for the current injunctive relief motion were reserved.