Frances P. Kiteley

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support following the parties' separation.

The applicant, who recently underwent a double lung transplant, sought $200,000 per month based on the respondent's high income and their lavish lifestyle during the marriage.

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, proposed $40,000 per month plus medical expenses.

The court conducted a budget analysis and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $54,000 per month, plus up to $28,000 per month for a personal care assistant, pending further financial disclosure and a final determination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged he was not interviewed for a municipal job due to discrimination based on race and origin, and that the job posting's preference for 'lived immigration experience' was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's conclusion that the applicant failed to show his non-Canadian experience was disregarded was reasonable.

The Court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee dismissing allegations of patient abuse against a registered nurse.

The allegations involved the nurse allegedly slapping a psychiatric patient across the face.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations after finding the evidence of the two complaining nurses to be inconsistent and not credible, while finding the respondent nurse's denials to be plausible.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding that the credibility assessments and factual findings were defensible and supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that summarily dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal by a retail store.

The Tribunal had found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to evidence establishing a link between the store's actions and his race or colour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were transparent, intelligible, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to set aside a final order that struck his pleadings and directed an uncontested trial.

The respondent argued that his responding materials were not before the judge who made the order due to a clerical error, and that he was substantially in compliance with prior orders.

The court found that even if the materials had been considered, they did not demonstrate compliance with the prior orders regarding support arrears and expert income reports.

The court concluded that the respondent's non-compliance was willful and deliberate, and dismissed the motion to set aside the order.

The mother appealed a decision dismissing the Children's Aid Society's motion for leave to withdraw its child protection application.

The Society had sought to withdraw the application as there were no ongoing protection concerns and all parties consented.

The motion judge dismissed the request, focusing on parallel domestic custody proceedings.

The Superior Court granted the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider the uncontradicted evidence of no protection concerns, the consent of the parties, and the reasons for withdrawal.

The motion for leave to withdraw the protection application was granted.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.

The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.

The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

The applicant, a former probationary professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against the university.

The Tribunal had found her application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, calculating the time from the date she was denied tenure rather than her final day of employment or the denial of her grievance.

The Tribunal also dismissed her reprisal claim and denied her request to amend the application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, finding that the denial of tenure was the triggering event and that there was no evidence of an intention to retaliate by the university.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order quashing his appeal to the Divisional Court from an order of the Law Society's Appeal Division.

The Appeal Division had quashed his appeal of a Hearing Division Tribunal order admitting findings of fact from a civil trial into his conduct proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Appeal Division's order was not a final decision under s. 49.38 of the Law Society Act, as there had been no final determination of professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it had discriminated against the respondent.

The respondent was subjected to a racial slur by another customer at a court services office.

While most City staff responded promptly and appropriately, the Tribunal found discrimination based on one clerk's inadequate response.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review and quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to find a poisoned environment and fix corporate responsibility on the City based on the inconsequential conduct of a single non-supervisory employee when the overall response was appropriate.

The respondent, an Anishnaabe elder, commenced a human rights application alleging that the use of the 'Cleveland Indians' team name and logo at the Rogers Centre constituted discrimination.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matter fell under federal trademark law.

The tribunal issued an interim decision dismissing the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interim decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding that it did not raise a true question of jurisdiction and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's penalty requiring her to resign or face termination.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting 15 fraudulent massage therapy benefits claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OCPC reasonably applied the standard of review, properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's weighing of the Krug factors and usefulness test, and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellants, minority shareholders of an insolvent corporation, appealed a motion judge's order granting partial summary judgment dismissing their claims for damages for oppression, breach of contract, and tort.

The motion judge found no evidence that the respondents' alleged wrongful conduct caused the appellants' damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of the damages claims, confirming that causation and compensable injury are required for an oppression claim under the Business Corporations Act.

The court made a minor amendment to the order to correct an accidental error regarding declaratory relief, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order expunging a secretly recorded transcript of a without-prejudice meeting from their judicial review application record.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a 'hint of compromise' is not an essential element of the test for settlement privilege, particularly for oral communications in a meeting convened to resolve a dispute.

The court also found that the public interest exception did not apply, as the appellants' desire to use the communications to bolster their allegations did not outweigh the public interest in encouraging settlement.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of an unredacted forensic investigation report.

The Commissioner found that the report contained personal information exempt from disclosure under s. 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but ordered full disclosure based on the public interest override in s. 16.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the Commissioner's failure to identify the specific personal information exempted under s. 14 made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the s. 16 balancing analysis.

The appellant purchased a commercial property from the respondents and gave a vendor take back mortgage.

The respondents remained as tenants.

The appellant sued in Small Claims Court for unpaid rent and property removal costs, while the respondents counterclaimed.

During the trial, the respondents' counsel withdrew, and the Deputy Judge ordered the appellant to pay the outstanding mortgage balance of $59,235.31 into court to obtain a discharge and avoid prejudice from the delay.

The Deputy Judge ultimately awarded the appellant $25,000 plus costs, but ordered the remaining funds in court paid to the respondents, failing to account for agreed-upon rent set-offs that were not formally pleaded.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Deputy Judge exceeded Small Claims jurisdiction by ordering the $59,235.31 payment, the Superior Court had jurisdiction under s. 134(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to correct the unintended consequences.

The appeal was allowed, and judgment was granted to the appellant for $53,505 plus costs, to be paid from the funds in court.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board not to proceed with a review of his complaint against his niece, a physician.

The Board had found the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it arose from ongoing family litigation and was essentially the same as a previous complaint that had been dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness.

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.