Frances P. Kiteley

The respondents brought a motion to stay a $50,000 costs order pending their motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

Specifically, they did not establish a serious issue to be tried regarding the correctness of the costs order, nor did they demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant had failed to order the hearing transcript within the required time under the Rules of Civil Procedure and had taken no steps to pursue the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the grounds of appeal lacked merit, raised no extricable questions of law, and that the appeal was merely a delaying tactic.

The motion to quash was granted and the stay of eviction was vacated.

The proposed intervenors, former appellate counsel for the applicant, brought a motion to be added as parties to the applicant's Rule 59.06 motion, which sought to set aside a previous Divisional Court order based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The applicant consented to the intervention but sought to restrict the intervenors from seeking costs or making submissions on underlying legal issues.

The court granted the intervention with full party rights, declined to impose the requested restrictions, and awarded costs of the motion to the intervenors.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his Small Claims Court appeal for delay.

The court applied the four-part test from Paulsson v. Cooper.

While the appellant demonstrated an intention to appeal and provided a mental health explanation for the significant delay, he failed to provide a trial transcript or demonstrate that the appeal had merit.

The court concluded that the justice of the case did not warrant setting aside the dismissal order, and the motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant subcontractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its claim for breach of contract and granting the respondent's counterclaim for damages caused by roof leaks.

The appellant raised issues regarding contract terms, mitigation, a settlement agreement, causation of the leaks, and the award of damages.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding errors in the Deputy Judge's findings of mixed fact and law.

The appeal was dismissed, though a calculation error in the damages award was corrected.

The applicant, a daycare teacher, sought judicial review of decisions by the respondent children's aid society verifying an allegation of risk of sexual harm against him.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent's investigation was fundamentally flawed, superficial, and failed to follow mandatory investigative steps, such as interviewing key witnesses and examining the physical layout of the daycare.

The court quashed the respondent's decisions, finding them unreasonable, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review (treated as an appeal) of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision that upheld findings of professional misconduct and a penalty of suspension and practice restrictions.

The applicant argued the panel erred in denying disclosure of certain investigation files, ignoring evidence, and imposing an unreasonable penalty, and also raised a new issue of delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Appeal Panel's decisions on disclosure and factual findings were reasonable, declining to hear the new issue of delay due to an insufficient record, and concluding the penalty was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for $1,000,000.

The Divisional Court noted it lacked jurisdiction under s. 19(1.2)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, which limits its jurisdiction to dismissals of claims not exceeding $50,000.

The appellant requested a transfer to the Court of Appeal.

The court declined to transfer the matter, finding the appeal had no merit, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside or vary an order signed by the Registrar, which had been made following a motion by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The court found no legal basis to set aside or vary the order, as it coincided with the previous judge's endorsement.

The motion was dismissed with costs of $200 awarded to the respondent.

In an addendum to a previous endorsement granting the plaintiffs an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a certification decision, the Divisional Court provided directions on the contents of the motion record.

Noting that motions for leave to appeal are now heard in writing by a three-judge panel, the court emphasized the need for counsel to collaborate and file a circumspect, necessary record rather than an extensive one.

The deadline for the plaintiffs to serve and file the record was extended to allow for this collaboration.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the bankrupt's former spouse.

The former spouse had appealed an order made by a Master, arguing the Master acted in her capacity as a Superior Court Master rather than a Registrar in Bankruptcy, which would give the Divisional Court jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found that the Master was acting in her capacity as a Registrar in Bankruptcy when she dismissed the motion to vary.

Consequently, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from a Registrar in Bankruptcy must be brought before a single judge on the Commercial List.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The applicant, a medical school graduate, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Examiners requiring him to undergo remediation for a lapse in professionalism.

The applicant had initiated an internal appeal but abandoned it, choosing instead to complete the remediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his internal appeal remedies and demonstrated no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the administrative process.

The defendants brought a motion to quash the plaintiffs' appeal of a class action certification order that excluded U.S. defendants.

The plaintiffs brought cross-motions for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the exclusion of the U.S. defendants and the refusal to certify redundant causes of action.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that leave to appeal was required.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time regarding the U.S. defendants, but granted the extension of time regarding the redundant causes of action due to a conflicting decision in a parallel Alberta proceeding.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding the respondent insured's entitlement to income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate had upheld the arbitrator's award of income replacement benefits but remitted other issues for re-hearing due to inadequate reasons.

The insurer argued the Director's Delegate breached procedural fairness and provided inadequate reasons by not remitting all issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Director's Delegate's reasons were adequate and reasonable.

The court held a case conference to determine next steps in a complex family law dispute involving multiple proceedings, including a guardianship application.

The core issues were whether the applicant husband had the capacity to instruct counsel and to seek a divorce, and whether the parties desired to reconcile under s. 10 of the Divorce Act.

The court ordered a five-day trial to determine these discrete issues of capacity and reconciliation, imposing time limits on the presentation of evidence and placing the burden of proof on the applicant husband.

The appellant appealed a decision finding his conduct in connection with a family business was oppressive and removing him as a director, officer, and trustee.

The appellant had emptied the company's bank account, attempted to exclude his daughters from the account, and used corporate funds for personal purposes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant breached his fiduciary duties.

The court held that the remedy of removing him from his roles was appropriate and consistent with the parties' reasonable expectations, given his conduct and the divisive family relationship.

Canada Post Corporation applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a temporary employee dismissed for failing to demonstrate reasonable availability.

The arbitrator found the dismissal unjustified, introducing a requirement for corporate prejudice.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator failed to follow established arbitral jurisprudence and impermissibly amended the collective agreement by requiring corporate prejudice, his ultimate conclusion that the dismissal was unreasonable remained defensible on the facts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant regarding the deemed undertaking rule, the court considered the issue of costs.

The court had previously indicated a preliminary view that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty and public importance of the issue.

The appellant sought $12,000 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs on the appeal but sought to retain the motion judge's costs award.

The Divisional Court confirmed its preliminary conclusion, ordering no costs for the original motion, the motion for leave to appeal, or the appeal itself, emphasizing the public benefit of clarifying a novel point of practice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that police officers discriminated against him based on race when they arrested and charged him following a neighbour dispute.

The applicant argued the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, alleging the police response was disproportionate and influenced by racial stereotypes, and that the HRTO showed bias in its credibility assessments and drawing of adverse inferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO applied the correct legal principles, its credibility findings were entitled to high deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.