Freya Kristjanson

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an adjournment order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

The applicant, a medical student, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Academic Appeals Committee upholding findings of professionalism lapses.

The applicant argued that the initial process before the Board of Examiners was procedurally unfair due to insufficient notice and undisclosed allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial process was flawed, the subsequent appeals before the Faculty of Medicine Appeals Committee and the Academic Appeals Committee were conducted as de novo hearings that cured any procedural defects.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award concerning a grievance for an employer's failure to investigate a workplace sexual assault of a 17-year-old employee.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance but awarded only $1,000 in nominal damages, finding the employee suffered no mental or emotional damages and blaming the lack of a formal complaint.

The Divisional Court found the award unreasonable, holding that the arbitrator failed to address the employer's statutory breaches under the Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, relied on irrelevant considerations, and used stereotypical reasoning regarding the victim's reaction.

The court quashed the decision and directed a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his battery claim and awarding the respondent $50,000 on a defamation counterclaim.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act because the original claim exceeded $50,000 and the jury did not indicate what damages would have been awarded had the claim succeeded.

Applying the Dunnington factors, the court exercised its discretion under section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Russian Federation appealed an interlocutory decision that denied its request to adduce fresh evidence on an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's interim award on jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an application to challenge a tribunal's jurisdiction under Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law is a hearing de novo, not a deferential review.

Consequently, the parties are entitled as of right to adduce evidence that was not before the arbitral tribunal.

The appellant, a lawyer whose licence was suspended for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation, sought to appeal and judicially review a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that denied his motion for a stay pending appeal and a permanent stay of proceedings for abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Appeal Division's decision was interlocutory and not a final decision.

The Court also dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the appellant must allow the administrative process to run its course and that his allegations of abuse of process did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting early intervention.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated May 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,600 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $15,000, in accordance with the terms of the Occupancy Licence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated March 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $5,000 for each of the two defendant groups, totaling $10,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its poultry service workers were not exempt from the Employment Standards Act under the farm worker exemption.

The Board had concluded that because the employees provided services to multiple farms, they were not employed 'on a farm' within the meaning of the exemption.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation was consistent with its past decisions and struck a reasonable balance between the purposes of the Act and the exemption.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The parties settled an appeal, agreeing that costs would be agreed to or assessed.

No agreement was reached.

The respondent on the appeal asked the court to fix and award the costs of the appeal, while the appellants requested a referral to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court held that the matter was not complex and retained its discretion to fix costs.

The court awarded the respondent $5,820.63 for the appeal and $3,000 for the appearance.

The respondent, an actor, sued her union (ACTRA) and its rights society in Small Claims Court, alleging they miscalculated and underpaid her royalties (Use Fees) for a movie performance.

The union brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from a collective agreement.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the interpretation, application, and administration of the collective agreement and the union's duty of fair representation.

Therefore, the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board or a labour arbitrator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, which upheld a police chief's finding that officers did not engage in discreditable conduct.

The officers had required the applicant to leave her parents' home at the homeowner's request, despite the applicant having registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation on the property.

The Divisional Court held that the police acted reasonably and within their discretion to prevent a breach of the peace and enforce the homeowner's rights.

The application for judicial review was dismissed without costs.

The appellant purchased commercial property subject to an easement, with a vendor take-back mortgage that would be reduced by $442,000 if the vendor failed to register a valid release of the easement within one year.

The vendor obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it two days before the deadline, but the order was subsequently appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the purchaser's appeal, holding that while a court order can satisfy the requirement for a release, an order subject to subsisting appeal rights does not provide the bargained-for certainty of good title.

The purchaser was therefore entitled to the $442,000 reduction in the mortgage principal.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a city council decision and an integrity commissioner's report finding he engaged in sexual misconduct and obstructed an investigation.

The integrity commissioner recommended, and the city council imposed, a 90-day suspension of pay, a formal reprimand, and other remedial actions.

The Divisional Court upheld the integrity commissioner's findings and process, finding no breach of procedural fairness and that the investigation was properly commenced.

The court upheld most of the remedial actions imposed by the city council but quashed one measure that restricted the councillor to communicating with the public solely via his city email address, finding it overly broad and unreasonable.

The applicant, a family health team, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision to terminate its funding agreement without cause.

The applicant alleged the termination was made in bad faith to cover up fraud by the applicant's former board of directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the funding agreement was a private law contractual matter not subject to judicial review.

The court applied the Air Canada factors and concluded the decision lacked a sufficient public character.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of bad faith or improper purpose by the Minister.