Freya Kristjanson

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that denied their claim for over $1.2 million in costs following a lengthy proceeding.

The underlying application concerned a nuisance claim against a greenhouse and anaerobic digester operated by a court-appointed receiver.

The Board had found that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct and declined to award costs to either side.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Board's discretionary costs decision.

The appellant appealed a family court order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the relief appealed from was granted under the Divorce Act, meaning jurisdiction properly lay with the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal under s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated March 29, 2019, and June 5, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $11,000.

The tenants were evicted from their rent-geared-to-income apartment for persistent late payment of rent.

After the eviction was carried out and the apartment was leased to a new tenant, the tenants appealed the Landlord and Tenant Board's order and brought an urgent motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reinstate their tenancy or provide an alternative unit pending the appeal.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to grant such relief, but applied the strict test for a mandatory injunction.

The motion was dismissed because the tenants failed to establish a strong prima facie case on appeal, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured displacing the new tenant or forcing the landlord to provide another unit.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding the employer's refusal to disclose a commercial Master Services Agreement (MSA) with a third party.

The union alleged the refusal violated the employer's duty to not interfere with union representation and the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions to deny full disclosure, find the initial bad faith bargaining complaint premature, and later order only partial disclosure based on specific bargaining concessions, were all reasonable and consistent with established labour jurisprudence.

This costs endorsement relates to an appeal from a summary judgment decision in a child protection application.

The intervenor, Ms. Renatta Austin, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defending against serious, unwarranted, and reckless allegations of professional impropriety and ineffective assistance of counsel made by the appellant.

The court found that such allegations, unsupported by evidence, warranted an award of costs despite the general presumption against costs in child protection matters and the appellant's limited financial means.

The court emphasized the need to deter unfounded attacks on lawyers, particularly those providing access to justice in difficult cases.

Costs were awarded to the intervenor against the appellant.

The landlord brought an urgent motion to enforce an eviction order during the COVID-19 provincial eviction moratorium, arguing the tenant's continued occupancy jeopardized a real estate closing.

The court first determined that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the order after dismissing the appeal, but the parties agreed to have the judge hear it as a motion for directions under Rule 60.17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sitting as a Superior Court judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the landlord's evidence of harm speculative and noting the moratorium was intended to protect tenants like the respondent, who was unable to move because his new landlord could not evict the existing tenant due to the pandemic.

The self-represented appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board but failed to perfect the appeal within the required time.

The Registrar dismissed the appeal for delay.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal and extend the time to perfect.

The Divisional Court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal and found that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the delay, the landlord would suffer prejudice, and the appeal lacked merit as it raised no questions of law.

The motion was dismissed and the eviction order remained in force, subject to the provincial COVID-19 moratorium on evictions.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed her claims for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture arising from her involvement in the respondent's dog grooming business during their common-law relationship.

The trial judge had found the appellant exaggerated her involvement and was adequately compensated.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that her trial counsel provided inadequate representation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to impute an annual income of $130,000 to him for the purpose of calculating spousal support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by relying solely on previous earnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge considered multiple factors including age, education, skills, and local job market rates.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence of the appellant's post-hearing employment, noting the proper procedure for changed circumstances is a new motion to change.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards claim against his former employer.

The dispute centered on the number of hours the applicant worked in October 2017.

The Board found he worked 34.5 hours, while the applicant claimed he worked up to 93 hours.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's factual finding was reasonable based on the evidence, which included a paystub and OMVIC registration documents.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court expressed dismay that the appellant failed to file a proper record, transcripts, or exhibits, and instead filed an affidavit without moving to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent also filed an affidavit improperly.

The court adjourned the appeal, imposing tight timelines for the appellant to order transcripts and perfect the appeal, and ordered no costs to date.

The mother (P.P.) brought a motion seeking interim changes to a consent final order, requesting sole custody and decision-making authority for the child, A.B., and suspension of the father's (J.J.S.) access.

The motion was based on the father's erratic behaviour, including missed access visits, withholding the child from school, refusal to consent to a psychoeducational assessment, and non-cooperation with investigations by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS) and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted the mother interim sole custody and decision-making, suspended the father's access pending his cooperation with investigations, and ordered financial disclosure.

Costs were awarded to the mother due to the father's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant husband sought to stay the child and spousal support provisions of an arbitration award pending leave to appeal.

The respondent wife opposed the stay.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, finding that while a serious issue for appeal existed, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored a stay.

The court emphasized the arbitrator's findings of the applicant's financial non-disclosure and the "no automatic stay" policy for support orders.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

In a family trial involving parenting, support, property, and related tort claims, the court addressed a prolonged online harassment and cyberbullying campaign by the applicant against the respondent, her family, and even court participants, including repeated publication of recordings and images of the children.

Applying the best interests framework under the Divorce Act, the Children's Law Reform Act, and the Rights of the Child Convention, the court granted the respondent sole custody, permitted the children to reside in England, imposed strict supervised-access conditions, and issued a permanent restraining order.

The court also imputed income due to egregious financial non-disclosure, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, security for support from sale proceeds, and equalization-related payments.

In the civil component, the court found intentional infliction of mental suffering and invasion of privacy, recognized the false light publicity tort, and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order placing her two children in extended society care with no access.

She argued the proceeding was procedurally unfair because she was improperly designated a 'special party' due to mental incapacity, which deprived her of the right to instruct counsel.

She also alleged ineffective assistance by the counsel appointed for her by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the special party designation was valid and unappealed, the appointed counsel provided competent representation, and the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in determining that extended society care was in the children's best interests.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, both retroactive and prospective.

The parties separated 6.5 years prior, during which time the applicant husband paid all carrying costs for the matrimonial home where the respondent resided.

The court declined to determine retroactive support on an interim motion due to complexity.

For prospective interim spousal support, the court imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the respondent and ordered the applicant to continue paying the carrying costs of the home as the status quo until its sale, after which he must pay $4,840 per month in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The defendant abandoned a summary judgment motion on the eve of argument after the plaintiffs had repeatedly warned that credibility issues required a trial.

The plaintiffs sought costs for the abandoned motion.

The court found that the defendant acted unreasonably in bringing and pursuing the motion, which stood virtually no chance of success, and awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court also allowed a small set-off for the defendant's costs of responding to the plaintiffs' tactical cross-motion, which was also abandoned.

The plaintiffs were awarded net costs of $37,000.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of the parties' child, supervised access for the respondent father, and a permanent restraining order.

The parties' relationship was marked by domestic violence, and post-separation, the respondent engaged in a severe campaign of cyber harassment and threats against the applicant, her family, her lawyers, and the judiciary.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted summary judgment awarding sole custody to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent, and issued a permanent restraining order.

The court also ordered the respondent to return the applicant's hard drives and destroy any copies of her personal information.

The applicant sought a review of spousal and child support provisions in a separation agreement, arguing the respondent was intentionally underemployed.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed since separation and imputed income to her for support purposes.

The court also confirmed the applicant's income calculation and the 50/50 net disposable income split, and addressed section 7 expenses.

A further review was ordered to determine the duration and basis of spousal support entitlement.