George W. King

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy on the basis that the landlords had entered into a valid agreement of purchase and sale and the purchaser required possession in good faith.

The tenant argued the agreement was invalid because it required vacant possession on closing, and that the Board erred in interpreting her lease as month-to-month.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's arguments raised questions of mixed fact and law rather than extricable questions of law, and that the Board did not breach procedural fairness in refusing to summons the property manager.

The applicant, a First Nation person operating a tobacco distribution business on a reserve, sought judicial review of the Minister's direction requiring wholesalers to pre-collect provincial tobacco tax from her.

She argued this violated her tax exemption rights under section 87 of the Indian Act and the Tobacco Tax Act regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory exemption for 'exclusive use' does not apply to tobacco purchased for resale.

The court also held that the provincial pre-collection scheme is constitutional, does not conflict with the Indian Act under the paramountcy doctrine, and does not impair core federal jurisdiction under the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim sole custody and to restrict the respondent father's access to supervised visits, citing his public anti-masking behaviour and denial of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased, unsupervised access.

The court found that the respondent's intentional flaunting of public health guidelines and boastful anti-masking behaviour put the children at risk.

Applying the Ribeiro framework, the court granted the applicant interim sole custody and ordered that the respondent's access be supervised to ensure compliance with COVID-19 precautions.

The appellants appealed an order directing an election for a new common board of directors for two related not-for-profit corporations and ordering the delivery of keys to a shared property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge had jurisdiction under the Corporations Act to order the election, did not breach procedural fairness, provided adequate reasons, and awarded reasonable costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 23, 2020.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 14, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the leave motion at $3,500, with entitlement to those costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the March 19, 2020 order of Moore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the defendant in the amount of $4,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the September 15, 2020 order of Justice E.M. Morgan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The self-represented appellant tenant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing because the respondent landlord failed to comply with a case management directive regarding the service of materials.

The tenant received the materials only a week before the hearing and required time to seek legal advice.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment on conditions, including that the tenant pay rent on specified dates, and reserved the costs of the attendance to the panel hearing the appeal.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $30,326.95 claim for construction materials on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of over $47,000.

The plaintiff had also incurred costs exceeding the claim amount.

The court criticized the disproportionate legal fees expended by both parties for a modest liquidated claim.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants fixed costs of $21,766.56.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order that granted joint custody and gradually increased the respondent mother's access to their child.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the child's recent regressive behaviour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test and consisted largely of uncorroborated hearsay.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests, the mother's history of substance abuse, and the parties' ability to communicate.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges arising from repeated sexual abuse allegations made by his daughter over many years during her childhood.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant credible and reliable despite discrepancies in timing, relying in part on detailed evidence about the family home and a distinctive tattoo on the accused that strongly corroborated her account.

The court rejected suggested motives to fabricate based on support for a spouse's complaint and family conflict over sexual orientation.

The Crown proved incest, the charged historical sexual offence against a young person, and sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and extortion.

The offences involved the offender confining and repeatedly cutting a victim over a drug debt.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal history, which included numerous violent offences and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

The court found the criteria for a dangerous offender designation were met under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court concluded that the risk could be managed in the community after a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 12.5 years, leaving 4 years and 164 days to serve after pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from the flooding of their greenhouse, alleging the defendants negligently altered their adjacent property and caused the flood.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding the dispute, which the defendants subsequently breached by failing to construct a berm.

The court held that the plaintiffs could not rescind the settlement to resurrect their tort claim, as they had contracted it away.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendants caused the flooding.

However, the court granted a declaration that the defendants breached the Minutes of Settlement, entitling the plaintiffs to damages for that breach.

The respondents sought costs after successfully opposing a motion by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society to stay an order of the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Society argued that as a government agency, it should not be liable for costs absent a finding of bad faith, relying on Rule 24(2) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that while there is no presumption of costs against a government agency, Rule 24(3) preserves the court's discretion to award them.

Finding that the respondents were put to significant expense opposing a strategic litigation decision by the Society, the court awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a settlement of a commercial lease dispute, which included an injunction and a dispute over additional rent.

The court awarded costs to Calibur Tool and Mold Inc. on a partial indemnity basis for the injunction application, finding it was a necessary step due to the respondents' improper actions in blocking access to the leased premises.

No costs were awarded to either party for the additional rent dispute, as the settlement reflected a mixed success and it was not possible to determine who fared better.

The Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (WECAS) applied to extend a stay of an order from the Child and Family Services Review Board, which had directed the return of a child (S.G.) to foster parents J.T. and C.T., pending WECAS's appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court, sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court, applied the three-stage test for a stay or interlocutory injunction.

The court found it questionable that WECAS would succeed on appeal, given the reasonableness standard of review for the Board's decision.

Furthermore, the court determined that J.T., C.T., and the child would suffer greater irreparable harm if the stay were granted.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed, and WECAS was ordered to return the child to J.T. and C.T. by March 19, 2020.

The offender, Mitchell O’Hanley, was convicted of dangerous driving and arson.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of prior record, employment, and efforts towards rehabilitation, against aggravating factors including the seriousness of arson, complete destruction of property, risk to neighbours and firefighters, and the dangerous driving incident.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for arson, imposing a 15-month imprisonment for arson and a $1,750 fine with a 30-day license suspension for dangerous driving, followed by 24 months probation.

The plaintiff subcontractor, Tremblar Building Supplies Ltd., brought an action against the owner defendants (The Lighting Boutique Defendants) for breach of trust under the Construction Act and unjust enrichment, seeking payment for materials supplied to a general contractor (Keystone) that subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The owner defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that no statutory trust existed between the owner and the subcontractor due to a lack of privity of contract, as established by prior Divisional Court rulings.

Furthermore, the court determined that the existing contractual arrangements and the comprehensive scheme of the Construction Act constituted juristic reasons, thereby precluding any claim for unjust enrichment.

Following a tragic incident where the defendant intentionally drove her vehicle into a river, killing two children, civil actions were commenced.

The defendant's insurer, Aviva, denied liability coverage but was required to pay the statutory minimum.

The plaintiff's underinsurer, State Farm, settled the plaintiff's claim and brought a motion seeking an order that Aviva pay 50% of the costs of that settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding that because Aviva remained an active participant in the litigation to maximize its credit on a separate underinsurance claim, it should share the costs burden equally with State Farm.