Freya Kristjanson

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving parties failed to close on a pre-construction home and sued for the return of their deposit.

The action was stayed by a Master due to an arbitration clause in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The moving parties sought to appeal the stay but missed the deadline, and a single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion to extend the time to appeal, finding the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The moving parties brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to review the single judge's order.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact, and agreeing that section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 is a complete bar to the appeal.

The appellant appealed a discretionary decision declining to enforce a settlement.

The motion judge had found that there was a mistake with respect to the performance of the settlement, making its enforcement unjust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error in principle and that mistakes justifying a refusal to enforce a settlement are not restricted to mistakes in the formation of a contract.

The City of Windsor appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision awarding the respondents approximately $2.8 million in compensation for expropriated lands and injurious affection.

The City argued the LPAT breached natural justice by copying the respondents' submissions and erred in its treatment of Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) regarding environmentally sensitive lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the extent of copying did not rebut the presumption of independent decision-making.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the LPAT's factual findings regarding the impact of the PPS on the lands' development potential, the valuation of the properties, or the award of interest.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record.

The plaintiff sued their former lawyers (the defendants) for professional negligence, alleging they recommended an improvident settlement of a long-term disability claim.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's current counsel was in a conflict of interest or would be a necessary witness regarding a subsequent tort settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the motion was premature because discoveries had not yet occurred and it was not established that current counsel would likely be a necessary witness.

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicants (responding parties) in the agreed amount of $5,000.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his child to the United States.

The parties separated while living in Massachusetts, and the mother moved to Ontario while pregnant.

The child was born in Ontario and remained there.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence was Ontario, as the child had never been to the United States.

The court also upheld the finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The moving party, Go Fleet Corporation, sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment and costs decision.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the moving party did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period, provided inadequate explanations for the delay, and caused prejudice to the responding party.

Furthermore, the court found the proposed appeal to be devoid of merit.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,891.66.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three orders of the motion judge regarding venue, surveillance, and costs.

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

The tenants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a consent eviction order and a refusal to extend the time to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's orders and noting that the appeal was filed out of time.

The Court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of process intended solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and allow the tenants to remain in the property without paying rent.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions dismissing his human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO found that the substance of his allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration, even though the union declined to advance Code-based arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's application of s. 45.1 was reasonable, as the arbitrator's factual findings precluded any finding of Code violations.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness denial and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiffs brought motions for leave to appeal the October 9, 2020 and November 6, 2020 orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motions at $10,000, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision regarding the possibility of a jury trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $5,000, noting that the defendant could renew the motion before the Superior Court of Justice if a jury trial could not proceed in May 2021.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim, arguing the new claims were statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, clarifying that because the motions judge did not finally dispose of the limitations defence, the order was interlocutory.

The defendants remain free to plead the limitations defence in response to the amended claim at trial.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants had not paid rent for over a year, causing the landlord severe financial hardship.

The tenants appealed the eviction order to the Divisional Court, triggering an automatic stay, and concurrently sought a review before the LTB.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal on three grounds: it was premature because the LTB review was ongoing; it was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no question of law; and it was an abuse of process designed solely to delay eviction and extend a rent-free tenancy.

The automatic stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from a judgment under the Construction Act.

The moving party's former counsel mistakenly believed the appeal period was 30 days under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the 15 days prescribed by the Construction Act.

The court granted the extension, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, the 14-day delay was explained by counsel's inadvertence, there was no prejudice to the responding parties, and the proposed appeal was not devoid of merit.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Community Council decision denying them a front yard parking pad permit.

The permit was refused because the proposed pad was on the same side of the street as authorized permit parking and was too close to a protected tree.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness and that their application was grandparented by a 31-year-old abandoned application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Community Council's decision was reasonable and that the applicants were afforded an appropriate level of procedural fairness given the context.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence.

The misconduct related to his failure to report the kidnapping of an acquaintance and his unauthorized use of a police database to provide information to the victim's brother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's decisions to allow video testimony, admit a criminal trial transcript, refuse a stay for delay, and impose the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding kindergarten class sizes.

The arbitrator had interpreted O. Reg. 132/12 under the Education Act as requiring class size caps to be determined only on a specified date in September, allowing sizes to fluctuate thereafter.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation, based on the text, context, and purpose of the regulation, was internally coherent and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.