Freya Kristjanson

The moving party sought leave to appeal from an order dismissing its appeal of an interlocutory order that discharged a certificate of pending litigation.

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

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying an adjournment and deeming his motion to oppose a certificate of assessment abandoned.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding his difficulties retaining counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge made no error in denying the adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to file materials or comply with court orders over an 11-month period.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two arbitration awards concerning the termination of an occasional teacher.

In the first award, the arbitrator found the termination lacked just cause but ordered damages in lieu of reinstatement without prior notice to the parties.

In the second award, the arbitrator calculated the damages, including deductions for mitigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the union should have raised its natural justice concerns regarding the first award with the arbitrator before proceeding to the damages hearing, as the arbitrator was not functus officio.

The court also found the arbitrator's mitigation analysis reasonable, distinguishing the facts from established appellate jurisprudence.

The appellant husband appealed from orders varying temporary child and spousal support, which had been mistakenly issued by the Registrar as final orders.

The Divisional Court set aside the final orders and directed they be reissued as temporary orders nunc pro tunc.

Although leave to appeal the interlocutory orders was required and would not have been granted, the court heard the appeal on the merits.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence regarding the date of separation due to a lack of due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in her support determinations.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Gilmore J. dated May 19, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, inclusive, payable forthwith.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of J. Wilson J. dated August 5, 2020.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties 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 costs of $5,000 payable to the responding insurance company.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order termination and severance pay against a related company and corporate directors following the employer's bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that he lacked jurisdiction to make orders against entities and individuals who were not parties to the collective agreement, noting that the related company was not a party and the Business Corporations Act requires a civil action to hold directors liable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal regarding the scheduling and hearing of a recusal motion and outstanding motions by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and permitted the appeal to be heard in Toronto or another region to secure an earlier date.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party, a defendant in the action, brought a motion for leave to appeal.

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 appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an earlier eviction order.

The tenant had already been evicted and the unit re-rented to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that even if successful, the Board had no jurisdiction to restore possession of the unit or force the landlord to provide a comparable unit, meaning a successful appeal would have no practical effect.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change a spousal support order.

He argued that the respondent was no longer entitled to compensatory support, that more income should be imputed to her, that his own imputed income of $100,000 was too high, and that an increase in child support constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

The court upheld the findings that the respondent made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient, the appellant failed to prove a material change in his income, and the increased child support did not reduce the respondent's need for support.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

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

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondents for unpaid invoices.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the two-year limitation period to the 2014 invoices, incorrectly calculating the statute-barred portion.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the judgment for Dutchmaster Nurseries Inc. to the single invoice within the limitation period, while upholding the judgment for Dutchman Industries Inc. as there was no palpable and overriding error in finding no contra agreement existed with them.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision ordering the disclosure of the Premier's mandate letters to Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet Office opposed disclosure, claiming the letters were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the IPC's decision.

The court found it was reasonable for the IPC to conclude that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosing the mandate letters would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The applicant, a dentist residing in British Columbia, sought judicial review of the respondent board's refusal to consider her compassionate appeals regarding failed clinical judgement assessments.

The appeals were filed years after the assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two primary grounds.

First, the court found it lacked jurisdiction as there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the matter should have been brought in British Columbia.

Second, the court held that the board lacked the authority to extend the one-week limitation period for compassionate appeals under the by-laws in effect at the time the assessments were completed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $20,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned rental property pursuant to the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by refusing an adjournment, disregarding his right of first refusal under a co-ownership agreement, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no error in the refusal of the adjournment and concluding the right of first refusal did not apply because the parties had already agreed to sell the property.

The appeal was allowed only to correct a minor error in the order regarding the holding of net proceeds in trust.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order awarding the respondent spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for both quantum and duration, as well as a payment for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not deducting the respondent's Ontario Disability Support Program benefits from the spousal support calculation and by finding an inability to work without independent expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the support award and upholding the trial judge's application of the joint family venture framework to the unjust enrichment claim.

The appellants appealed an order of the Surveyor General confirming a survey plan that fixed the position of a concession road allowance and shore road allowance across their property.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by disregarding an original monument and relying on a standard iron bar as the best evidence of the inner limit of the shore road allowance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the application of the hierarchy of survey evidence and no palpable and overriding error in the Surveyor General's factual findings regarding the monuments.