Frances P. Kiteley

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Physician Payment Review Board which found that five claims submitted by a physician were not stale-dated.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine the true basis for a denial of claims, its finding that the claims were not denied under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and a declaration was issued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s. 18(3).

The applicant sought an order addressing the income tax consequences of a temporary spousal support order previously made.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump sum equal to the applicant's tax liability on the periodic spousal support received in 2018.

The court also directed a review of the ongoing necessity and cost of the applicant's 24/7 personal care assistant.

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed from interim and final orders of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his request for compensation for an alleged assault and criminal conspiracy.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to issue summonses to three police officers and erred in assessing a police report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant failed to show the officers had relevant or necessary evidence, and holding that the Board's assessment of the police report involved findings of fact outside the court's jurisdiction.

A preliminary request for a publication ban was also denied.

The appellant appealed an order of the Master that refused to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The appellant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal, detailing severe medical and financial challenges that prevented him from advancing the litigation or retaining counsel earlier.

The Divisional Court granted leave to admit the fresh evidence, finding it credible, relevant, and excusably delayed due to the appellant's circumstances.

Based on the fresh evidence, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal order, concluding that the appellant's interest in pursuing his substantial claims outweighed the respondent's interest in having the claims dismissed, especially given the lack of actual prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in vexatious communications with Ministry of Transportation engineers regarding bridge design, while dismissing allegations of incompetence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Committee's decisions on both liability and penalty were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed, with a minor modification to the timeline for completing the Professional Practice Examination.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their request to review an eviction order.

Following the eviction order for the landlord's own use, the parties signed an agreement extending the move-out date.

The tenants argued this agreement, which allegedly included a $10,000 payment, created a new tenancy.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the agreement was a forbearance agreement under section 45(b)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act and did not create a new tenancy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding contents and additional living expenses following a residential fire.

During the hearing, the respondent insurer conceded it would pay the contents award without requiring a release, and agreed the applicants could litigate the interpretation of the additional living expenses coverage in court without being bound by the umpire's nil appraisal.

Given these concessions, the Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

In long-running family litigation involving substantial support, equalization, and costs arrears, the moving party disputed a lump-sum garnishment against his bank account funded only by disability-related government benefits.

The court held that the remaining CPP-Disability funds were not available for enforcement beyond the 50% already being garnished through the Family Responsibility Office, and that the January 2019 lump-sum garnishment against the identified RBC account was exhausted.

The notice of dispute to garnishment was allowed and the seized funds were ordered returned.

The court also dismissed the moving party's attempt to obtain leave to bring a motion to change because a prior order had declared him a vexatious litigant and barred further proceedings against the responding party until outstanding orders were satisfied.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of defence and counterclaim after they repeatedly failed to comply with a settlement agreement and a subsequent court order enforcing it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge made no error in principle and properly exercised his discretion under Rule 60.12.

The court held that the process established by the motions judge to determine the remaining damages for breach of settlement within the existing action was fair, efficient, and proportionate.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for substantially interfering with the landlord's lawful rights and interests.

The Board had found that the tenant's aggressive litigation conduct and obstruction of pest control inspections constituted substantial interference with the landlord's maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as there was no evidence of ongoing pest infestation or future obstruction, and the Board failed to analyze whether the litigation conduct met the threshold of 'substantial' interference.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs following successful motions related to the enforcement of a Consent and Minutes of Settlement for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed, arguing her actions were not in bad faith and she lacked the financial means to pay.

The court found the Respondent's behaviour unreasonable, particularly her attempts to renegotiate or set aside the settlement and her persistence in positions already dismissed.

While not constituting bad faith, her conduct warranted a costs award.

The Applicant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, reduced by 10 hours due to issues with his counsel's drafting of the consent order.

The total award of $34,394 was ordered to be paid from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

The applicant sought a vesting order for the matrimonial home to ensure its sale, following the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order to sign a listing agreement.

The court dismissed the vesting order motion, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Norris test, as there was no underlying claim to ownership or payment order.

Despite the dismissal of the vesting order, the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant due to her unreasonable conduct in initially refusing to sign the listing agreement.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to fulfill two undertakings given during questioning, specifically requesting marked-up statements to prove her actual expenses from a three-year-old financial statement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's request required the responding party to create a new document not covered by the original undertaking.

The court also held that the request was not proportional to the issues at trial, as need is only one factor in determining spousal support under the Divorce Act.

R.A.R., the father of A.J.H-R., brought a motion in the Superior Court seeking to set aside an adoption order and extend the time to appeal a Crown Wardship order, which was granted without access in 2011.

This action was prompted by the Motherisk Commission's finding that hair follicle tests significantly influenced the original wardship decision.

The current motion was for directions on the proper procedural route, venue, and statutory pathway, with R.A.R. relying on sections 7 and 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court adjourned the procedural motion to allow the newly retained counsel for the adoptive parents to take instructions and to encourage the parties to explore alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, given the complex issues involved.

This endorsement addresses two motions and sets directions for a future case conference in two related proceedings: a family law application (FS-15-406705) and a guardianship proceeding (FS-17-21568).

The court reserved decision on the motions and outlined issues for the upcoming case conference, including the impact of the "deemed undertaking" rule on evidence and productions, and status reports on disclosure and mediation.

Counsel were directed to collaborate on a proposed order regarding the deemed undertaking rule.

The respondent, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion under Family Law Rule 25(19)(b) to correct an order declaring George Chuvalo lacked capacity to reconcile, seeking to change its designation from "temporary" to "final." The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original order was correctly designated as "temporary" because capacity is fluid and the order did not finally dispose of all substantive issues in the ongoing divorce application.

The court clarified the distinction between temporary and final orders, applying the "classic test" that an order is interlocutory if the merits of the case remain to be determined.

The court also found no common intention between counsel to designate the order as "final" which is a requirement for correcting a mistake under Rule 25(19)(b).

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The applicant, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion for directions in a guardianship application concerning George Chuvalo.

She sought extensive disclosure of medical, financial, and legal records, and orders to revoke powers of attorney for property and personal care held by George's children, Mitchell and Vanessa Chuvalo.

The court narrowed the scope of disclosure, limiting medical records to periods surrounding the creation of the powers of attorney and dismissing most requests for financial and legal records as premature or disproportionate.

The primary issues were identified as the validity and potential revocation of the 2014 and 2016 powers of attorney.

Costs were reserved to the judge hearing the main guardianship application.

The father appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his motion to change a final order regarding custody and access.

The motions judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The appeal court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no errors in law or palpable and overriding errors in fact, particularly regarding the father's progressive hearing loss and other alleged changes.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to make written submissions on costs if they could not agree.