Freya Kristjanson

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from two previous decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Pollak J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the parties had reached an agreement on costs.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.

The mother appealed a trial decision placing her two children in extended society care and ordering that access for the mother, older sister, and grandmother be at the discretion of the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court upheld the extended society care order, dismissing the mother's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding that the trial judge erred in law by delegating the determination of the type, frequency, and duration of access entirely to the Society.

The matter of access was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant, whose veterinary licence was previously revoked for professional misconduct, brought motions before the College of Veterinarians seeking to set aside the revocation on grounds of fraud and fresh evidence.

The Chair of the Discipline Committee refused to convene a panel, finding the Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier decision.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction because there was no statutory decision to appeal, and noted that even if treated as a judicial review, the Chair's refusal was reasonable given the complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations of fraud or fresh evidence.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated September 24, 2020.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

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

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her request for reconsideration.

Her original human rights application was dismissed as abandoned after she failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding a jurisdictional issue.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov framework and found the adjudicator's reconsideration decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application regarding the landlord's handling of a bedbug infestation.

The tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence, which was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant failed to identify any error of law in the Board's interpretation of s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act or its factual findings, and rejected allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The moving party abandoned his motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $200 to the responding party forthwith.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $4,625.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing his application to review and change child support obligations under minutes of settlement.

The trial judge, unable to determine the parties' incomes, had ordered the continuation of the original $725 monthly payment.

The Divisional Court found this was an error of law and a palpable and overriding error of fact, as a review requires de novo findings of income and an assessment of the equal parenting time under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was allowed in part and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant landowners sought judicial review of the Minister's decision denying their request to 'bump-up' a class environmental assessment for a road-widening project to an individual environmental assessment.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to alleged errors in the environmental study report regarding stormwater management.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was reasonable as it addressed the applicants' concerns by imposing conditions and relying on concurrent planning processes.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent's transitional youth housing program was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(k).

The appellant argued that the introduction of section 5.1, which specifically regulates transitional housing, meant the respondent could no longer rely on section 5(k) without meeting section 5.1's prescriptive requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 5.1(5) explicitly preserves other exemptions, and the Board made no error of law in finding the respondent's program met the requirements for the section 5(k) exemption.