Freya Kristjanson

The appellant appealed an order under the Succession Law Reform Act regarding dependant support for her two minor children from their late father's estate.

The application judge had split the net estate equally between the children and the deceased's surviving spouse.

The Divisional Court found the application judge erred in his application of the legal test for quantifying support and improperly considered the appellant's receipt of social assistance.

The court varied the order to allocate 100 percent of the net estate to the minor children, given their precarious financial circumstances compared to the surviving spouse, while upholding the decision to exclude a pre-retirement surviving spouse pension from the estate's value.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the order of Glustein J. dated September 9, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $10,000.

The moving parties 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 $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought leave to appeal orders that dismissed its cross-motion requiring the respondent to post the amount of a foreign arbitral award and ordered the applicant to post security for costs.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the application judge's decision because it failed to consider Article 36 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, which governs the grounds for refusing recognition of an award and the specific circumstances for ordering security for costs.

The court noted the matter's importance to international comity.

The 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 responding parties fixed at $1,800.

The moving party, BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by a single judge of the Divisional Court who had determined an appeal from the Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, noting that under the Courts of Justice Act, leave to appeal such an order must be sought from the Court of Appeal.

No costs were awarded as neither party raised the jurisdictional issue.

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 $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding parties in the agreed amount of $10,000.

The Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission directing the Chief of Police to withdraw disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The Commission found that the Chief failed to comply with the mandatory investigation and reporting requirements under section 76 of the Police Services Act before initiating a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The applicant brought an application which was heard on an expedited schedule.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application with no order as to costs, noting that full reasons would follow in due course.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Region's decision denying her special priority status on the subsidized housing waitlist.

The applicant, a live-in caregiver, was abused by her employer and argued she was financially dependent on him.

The Region determined that an employer-employee relationship did not constitute financial dependency under the Housing Services Act and its regulations, which are intended to assist victims of domestic abuse in familial relationships.

The Divisional Court found the Region's interpretation reasonable and dismissed the application.

The respondent slipped and fell on an icy driveway while walking toward a waiting rideshare vehicle.

The License Appeal Tribunal found the incident was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling her to benefits.

The insurer appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by conflating the 'but for' test with the direct causation test.

The court held that while the vehicle's location led to the respondent being on the icy driveway, the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of her injuries.

The mother left Pakistan with the child without the father's consent or court permission, travelling to Ontario and then British Columbia.

The father applied in Ontario to enforce a Pakistani custody order.

The application judge found British Columbia was the more appropriate forum but simultaneously made a final order declining to recognize the Pakistani order.

The father appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred by making a final order on the merits while declining jurisdiction, which invited a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judgments.

The Ontario order was set aside, allowing the parties to litigate the issues in British Columbia.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court issued an amended endorsement to reflect that the moving parties were represented by counsel, as a Notice of Change of Lawyer had been filed but not uploaded to Caselines.

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 21, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The appellant sought to appeal and judicially review a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision which found her claims for statutory accident benefits were statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the statutory appeal, finding that the LAT's determination of whether the insurer's denial letter was clear and unequivocal was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, holding that judicial review of a LAT decision on statutory accident benefits is only available in exceptional circumstances, given the legislative intent to limit appeals to questions of law.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,195.

The moving party, Facca Incorporated, brought a motion for leave to appeal a November 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the third party, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, payable by the moving party.

No costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff as no costs submissions were received.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that dismissed his claim for injurious affection without a hearing.

The Tribunal relied on section 4.6(1)(c) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act but failed to provide the appellant with the required notice of its intention to dismiss the proceeding under section 4.6(2).

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's decision due to this procedural error, awarding costs to the appellant.

The applicant, a minor hockey coach, sought judicial review of a Children's Aid Society (CAS) decision verifying that six children were at risk of emotional harm due to his coaching conduct.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the CAS decision.

The Court found that the CAS breached procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with adequate notice of the specific allegations and the legal standard being applied.

Furthermore, the CAS's investigation was inadequate and its decision was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the legislative criteria for emotional harm and lacked a logical, reasoned basis for its conclusions regarding each child.