Freya Kristjanson

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision finding his child in need of protection and placing the child in the extended care of the Society.

During the trial, the father brought a non-suit motion at the close of the Society's case.

The trial judge failed to put the father to his election on whether to call evidence, reserved her decision, and subsequently ruled on a final basis that the child was in need of protection before the father could present his case.

The Divisional Court held this was a fundamental procedural error that deprived the father of his right to be heard on the protection issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of decisions by the Justices of the Peace Review Council finding her guilty of judicial misconduct and recommending her removal from office.

The misconduct stemmed from an article she published criticizing the bail system and making personal attacks on Crown Attorneys.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Review Council's decisions on misconduct, disposition, and costs compensation were reasonable and did not violate her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they had attempted to enforce their legal rights regarding illegal rent increases and maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board member correctly applied the legal test under section 83(3)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act and afforded the tenants procedural fairness.

The tenant appealed an eviction and rent arrears order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he never received notice of the hearing because it was sent to the wrong email address.

The Landlord and Tenant Board consented to the appeal, while the landlord opposed it but provided no contradictory evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal based on a denial of procedural fairness, set aside the order, and directed a new hearing with proper notice.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McLean J. dated May 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving parties, payable at the discretion of the appeal panel.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision ordering it to pay $185,000 in liquidated damages for failing to produce documents in a timely manner during a grievance process under a construction industry collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness, as the collective agreement mandated strict timelines and specific penalties for non-compliance.

The application was dismissed, save for a mathematical calculation error regarding the exclusion of weekends and holidays, which was remitted to the arbitrator on consent.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that the respondent employers were not statutorily obligated to negotiate the maintenance of pay equity plans following a health services integration.

The union argued that the Pay Equity Act required mandatory bargaining for pay equity maintenance and that the Tribunal's interpretation violated the freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Act as placing the responsibility for maintaining pay equity solely on the employer, with the union's role limited to monitoring and filing complaints.

The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision did not disproportionately limit Charter protections.

The moving party, Sota Dental Studio Inc., brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Toronto District School Board's decision to reduce the number of French immersion senior kindergarten classes at Palmerston Avenue Junior Public School from two to one.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to reallocate programs did not affect the rights, interests, or privileges of the applicants, and therefore did not attract a duty of procedural fairness.

The court also found that the Board's decision was substantively reasonable and that the Board did not create a legitimate expectation that a different process would be followed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which imposed a 12-month suspension and a general prohibition on prescribing and administering controlled substances.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by departing from a joint submission that would have allowed him to continue prescribing in an in-hospital setting, and by imposing a 12-month rather than 6-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee provided adequate notice of its concerns, met the high threshold for departing from a joint submission, and imposed a fit and proportionate penalty given the appellant's severe clinical deficiencies.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The moving party, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 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 to the responding parties fixed at $3,969.69.

Forest Grove Homes Limited appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to repair three Ontario Building Code violations related to the roof of a new home owned by Elaine Ducas.

Ducas cross-appealed, seeking an order requiring Tarion to investigate and correct the underlying cause of water penetration, which the Tribunal found was likely ice damming.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the building code violations, and agreeing that the statutory warranty did not require the builder to investigate the cause of the leak absent proof that a design flaw caused the ice damming.

The moving party sought leave to extend the time to seek leave to appeal a security for costs order that resulted in his answer being struck out.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, finding the moving party had the requisite intention to appeal and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit given the severe consequences of the underlying orders.

Leave to appeal was granted, and the underlying orders were stayed pending the disposition of the appeal.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy at a retirement residence for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex through abusive behaviour towards staff and residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB's application of the substantial interference test.

The Court also rejected arguments that the LTB hearing was procedurally unfair or that the LTB failed to properly consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when ordering the eviction.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

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

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Gibson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.