Freya Kristjanson

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

At the hearing, the appellant advised the court she was not actually seeking to appeal the Tribunal's decision, but rather sought to add unresolved claims to an existing Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had not appealed the prior Superior Court decision that barred her from adding those claims, and the time to do so had expired.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her claim for reimbursement of an allegedly illegal rent increase.

The tenant had agreed to pay an additional $200 per month and signed a written lease to deter the landlord from selling the property.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by relying on an express agreement to validate the increase, contrary to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Honsberger.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the LTB to determine whether the parties and premises changed sufficiently under the written lease to constitute a new tenancy agreement.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated July 29, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the parties to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $2,500, left to the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party, Aviva Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice O'Brien on September 29, 2020.

The respondent did not appear.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,800.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice L.C. Sheard on April 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,000.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued he was entitled to withhold rent because the landlord failed to provide its address under s. 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision that the issue was one of mixed fact and law.

The court noted the tenant had lived rent-free for 16 months and owed over $40,000 in arrears.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reinstating a railway conductor who was terminated following a positive urine test for marijuana.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably excluded an expert report on marijuana impairment tendered eight days before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably exercised his discretion to exclude the late report to protect the integrity and fairness of the expedited arbitration process.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that a positive urine test, without corroborating evidence of impairment, did not establish a violation of the employer's drug policy.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) dismissing their application for minor variances.

Concurrently, the moving parties sought an internal review of the decision under TLAB's rules, and the TLAB Chair directed that a review of ten of the twelve variances proceed.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal premature, as the administrative decision-making process had not ended.

To prevent fragmentation and misallocation of resources, the court adjourned the motion pending the final determination of the TLAB review process.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing her application against her employer for alleged disability discrimination.

The Tribunal had found that the employer's actions, including placing the applicant on administrative leave, requesting an independent medical examination, and transferring her to another school, were not discriminatory and did not breach the duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the applicant was improperly seeking to have the court reweigh the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the respondent tenants did not appear.

The court noted that the respondents' counsel had been removed from the record by a prior order, which was not in the court file, and the respondents had vacated the rental unit without leaving a forwarding address.

As there was no evidence that the respondents had been advised of the hearing date, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal to a date to be set by the Registrar.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 awarded to the successful party on the appeal.

The parties were directed to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Baltman J. dated November 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,222.67.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The appellant developer appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that repealed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment, preventing the construction of a 16-storey mixed-use building in downtown Kingston.

The Tribunal had found the development incompatible with the area's heritage character and Official Plan policies.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by prioritizing heritage over intensification, misapplying zoning by-laws, and improperly imposing height restrictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of competing policies and assessment of the public interest involved questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her application against her former employer for alleged discrimination in denying her tenure and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal had directed the matter to a preliminary and summary hearing, ultimately dismissing the claims for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's procedures were fair and its decisions were reasonable.

The court declined to consider new Charter and negligence claims raised for the first time on judicial review.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal from an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

An interim stay previously ordered was terminated.