Faye E. McWatt

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an endorsement of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Akazaki J. dated August 12, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement and the calculation of an earn-out provision (Target EBITDA).

The trial judge had found that the respondents constructively dismissed two key salespeople and engaged in oppressive conduct, reducing the Target EBITDA accordingly, but refused to further reduce it by a settlement amount the respondents received for a stolen book of business.

The trial judge also refused to adjust the Lower Threshold in the earn-out formula.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's contractual interpretation or his crafting of the oppression remedy, which properly validated the reasonable expectations of the parties as set out in the agreement.

A cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision ordering it to produce copies of a statement of claim and statements of defence to a unit owner.

The appellant argued the records were protected by litigation privilege and exempt from disclosure under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that exchanged pleadings are public documents that do not attract litigation privilege, and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to order disclosure.

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

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Penny J. dated January 8, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was filed, the court ordered no costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Faieta J. dated July 17, 2023.

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

The applicant, whose licence to practice law was revoked in 2012 for ungovernability, sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision affirming the denial of his re-licensing application.

The Hearing Division had found the applicant was not of good character due to his failure to disclose outstanding civil judgments, criminal convictions, and prior discipline, as well as a lack of remorse and rehabilitative efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision reasonable and concluding there was no procedural unfairness in the tribunal proceedings.

Four physiotherapists sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to issue them verbal cautions.

The cautions related to the inaccurate billing practices of their co-owned multidisciplinary clinic, which systematically waived insurance co-payments but billed the insurer for the full amounts.

The applicants argued the College lacked jurisdiction to regulate clinic business practices and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the College had jurisdiction to hold members accountable for systemic billing issues in their clinics and that the decisions and cautions were reasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for property damage allegedly caused by water discharging from their neighbours' sump pump.

The trial judge found the appellants failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities and noted other possible causes for the minor lawn indentation and concrete cracks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and there was no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of W.D. Newton J. dated August 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the plaintiffs (respondents) did not file a Bill of Costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated December 15, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fryer J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the responding party.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 25, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits on the basis that it was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant had returned to work immediately after the accident but stopped working 16 months later, at which point he applied for benefits.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the doctrine of discoverability.

Following Tomec, the court held that the limitation period could not begin to run before the appellant became eligible for the benefits.