Frances A. Marinic

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e), seeking $116,380.50.

The court found the plaintiffs ordinarily reside in Alberta with no assets in Ontario, satisfying the threshold under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

However, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or that their claim had a good chance of success, as there was no expert evidence on breach of the standard of care, no corroboration for the minor plaintiff's version of events, and no evidence of compensable mental trauma.

The court ordered $50,000 in staged security for costs, significantly reducing the amount sought due to the defendants' procedural failings, and awarded $5,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (OSET) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding his son's special education placement.

The applicant argued his son, who has autism, required 1:1 support in a regular classroom.

The OSET dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 1:1 support was a 'service' rather than a 'placement.' The HRTO subsequently summarily dismissed the applicant's human rights complaints.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding the OSET's narrow interpretation of 'placement' and the HRTO's summary dismissal were both unreasonable.

The HRTO decision was quashed and remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for substantial interference related to bed bugs in their rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board breached procedural fairness and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board afforded sufficient procedural fairness and properly controlled its own process.

Furthermore, the Court held that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, making reasonableness review inapplicable, and found no error in the Board's application of the law regarding the landlord's maintenance obligations.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to comply with multiple costs orders totaling $61,586.96.

The plaintiff argued he was entitled to a hearing before a panel of the Divisional Court to clarify their order before paying costs.

The court rejected this argument, finding no process exists for an explanatory attendance after an order is settled, the Divisional Court had already refused further attendance, the order was clear on its face, and the plaintiff's failure to pay costs remained unexplained.

The motion was granted with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant, Leslie Arthur Swan, appealed the dismissal of his claim for conspiracy and defamation against several respondents, including a condominium corporation, its manager, and legal counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it was a collateral attack on earlier proceedings and statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no error and dismissing the appeal with costs to the respondents.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for failing to meet record-keeping requirements, the Discipline Tribunal held a penalty and costs hearing.

The College sought a three-month suspension and $180,049.55 in costs, while the registrant argued against a suspension and submitted the costs request was excessive.

The Tribunal ordered a two-and-a-half-month suspension, a reprimand, and remedial record-keeping courses and inspections.

Noting divided success on the merits and the registrant's conduct during the proceedings, the Tribunal awarded the College $90,000 in costs, payable over five years.

The appellants appealed the identification and placement of their child by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

Following a subsequent IPRC meeting, the child's identification and placement were changed to match the appellants' request.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding no substantive dispute remained to be resolved, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the jurisdictional issues raised by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.

The appellant, a de-designated firearms instructor, appealed a costs order from a motion that struck and stayed parts of his second action (2022 Action) as duplicative of an earlier action (2018 Action).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the cumulative costs award fell below the $50,000 threshold specified in the Courts of Justice Act, which applies when the costs order itself is the subject of the appeal.

The plaintiff, Leslie Arthur Swan, sued multiple defendants for conspiracy and defamation in an 81-page Statement of Claim.

The defendants requested the registrar to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court, on its own initiative, considered the dismissal.

The court found the claim to be an abuse of process because it constituted a collateral attack on issues previously litigated and appealed, including matters related to the plaintiff's tenure on a condominium board, a lien against his unit, and prior defamation claims, all of which had been decided against him.

Additionally, some claims were found to be statute-barred.

The court dismissed the entire claim.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of a pupil.

The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their appeal remedies, specifically the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process, which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found that the failure to hold the SEAB meeting was due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and did not deprive the appellants of their substantive right to the process.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the appellants had not exhausted their appeal rights under section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The respondent school board requested an extension of time until October 23, 2020, to file its response to a notice of appeal regarding a special education placement, citing summer vacations and COVID-19 disruptions.

The appellants opposed the length of the extension, arguing it was unreasonable and prejudicial.

The Tribunal noted that while an emergency order suspended limitation periods, the requested delay was excessive.

The Tribunal granted the extension in part, ordering the respondent to file its response by September 11, 2020, balancing the administrative disruptions with the appellants' interest in a timely process.