M. Gregory Ellies

The applicant sought judicial review of two costs orders made by FSCO adjudicators after her claim for a $1,378.68 medical assessment expense was dismissed due to her failure to attend a required medical examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first-instance costs order as premature because an internal appeal was still pending.

The court dismissed the application regarding the appeal costs order on its merits, finding the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and justified given the applicant's complete lack of success and conduct that prolonged the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision reducing her spousal support, arguing the motions judge erred by not directing a trial and by failing to properly account for the compensatory nature of her support.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence of her historical tax returns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings, including the finding that the appellant had cohabited with her new partner prior to marriage, and correctly applied the law regarding material change in circumstances.

The applicant sought a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring a pension valuation, an up-to-date financial statement, and supporting documentation.

The court found the respondent in contempt for willfully failing to file an up-to-date financial statement in the correct Form 13.1, despite being explicitly instructed by a prior judge.

However, allegations regarding the pension valuation and supporting documentation were dismissed, as the former was not proven to be a willful breach and the latter was deemed too vague in the original order to establish deliberate non-compliance.

The court imposed an order for the respondent to file the correct financial statement and supporting documents within 14 days, with a conditional fine and imprisonment for non-compliance, and fixed costs payable to the applicant.

The accused, J. A. V., was charged with seven sexual offences involving three complainants, all under 16.

The court considered similar fact evidence for most allegations.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts related to M. H. (first and fourth incidents of sexual touching while M. was asleep), and not guilty on the remaining five counts involving B. D. and T. G., as well as the "lounge chair" and "penis stroking" incidents involving M. H., due to reasonable doubt regarding credibility, reliability, and implausibility of the complainants' or accused's evidence.

Submissions were requested for a potential stay on the guilty counts and disposition of two remaining Criminal Code breach counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and attempt to obstruct justice after breaking into a home and repeatedly stabbing three victims who had implicated his brother in a previous crime.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 to 5 years, citing the offender's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles.

The court emphasized the devastating impact on the victims and the need for public protection, sentencing the offender to 8 years imprisonment less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with multiple historical sexual offences against twin sisters who frequented his convenience store when they were youths.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual contact occurred before the complainants turned 14, or that one of the complainants was sexually assaulted.

However, the court found that the accused was in a position of trust towards one of the complainants when they began a sexual relationship after she turned 14.

As a result, her consent was legally irrelevant, and the accused was found guilty of sexual exploitation.

The plaintiff, a self-represented minister of the Church of the Universe, sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages and an injunction after being acquitted of possessing cannabis, which he claimed was a religious sacrament.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment, and the defendant moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion as premature.

The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the claims for Charter damages, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and negligence, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend his claim for a constitutional exemption under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because he had commenced a Superior Court action claiming a 50% ownership interest in the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a tenant and to order eviction, as he was not a registered co-owner and no final court determination of co-ownership existed.

The Court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, finding no denial of procedural fairness where the appellant voluntarily chose not to attend the hearing.

The appellant appealed a final order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him so the landlord could demolish the building.

The appellant argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by determining he was not a co-owner of the property, an issue he had raised in a concurrent Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act, which required assessing if he occupied the unit as a co-owner.

The Court held the Board's conclusion was reasonable and would not cause a multiplicity of proceedings, as the Board only determined legal ownership for tenancy purposes, leaving the Superior Court to adjudicate the appellant's claim for an equitable interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his claim for non-earner and housekeeping benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the insurer's failure to promptly respond to his application created a deemed entitlement to benefits, and that the arbitrator erred in applying causation principles given his multiple accidents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the insurer's delay did not create a deemed entitlement where the insured failed to prove entitlement.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's factual findings that the applicant failed to prove the accident caused his impairments or a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting his condition was essentially unchanged from pre-existing injuries.

This decision addresses the certification of a common issue regarding the aggregate assessment of damages under s. 24(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in a class action concerning improper access to personal health information.

Following the certification of the class action itself, the court considered whether a 'base amount' or 'minimum award' of damages could be determined in the aggregate for all class members, without individual proof of loss.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that aggregate damages were only applicable to causes of action with a deterrence element or that the case was factually distinguishable from precedent.

It concluded that a common issues trial judge could determine a base amount of damages given that every class member's privacy was breached in the same manner.

The appellant father appealed an order denying his application for periodic or lump sum dependant support for his minor daughter from her deceased mother's estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The mother had left life insurance proceeds in a bare trust for the daughter.

The application judge found the father's budget included expenses not attributable to the child and ordered funds paid into court to be administered by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's consideration of the statutory factors, his assessment of the evidence, or his decision to utilize the Minor's Fund Program to manage the support payments.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking after a police officer found cocaine in his rental vehicle following a traffic stop.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for a criminal investigation and not a valid stop under the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The court also found that the officer's demands for the rental agreement and questions about the accused's travel itinerary constituted unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the multiple serious Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the drugs under section 24(2).

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider a previous order granting her a rent abatement and improperly proceeded in her absence due to a medical emergency.

On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a reversible error by failing to account for the prior abatement order.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing to be held concurrently with a new eviction application filed by the property's subsequent owner.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought partial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an injunction against the respondents for operating an unauthorized automobile repair shop.

The respondents opposed the costs, arguing the matter was not complex or important, and that the claimed costs were excessive.

The court found the matter important to the Municipality and upheld the full amount of partial indemnity costs claimed, addressing objections regarding excessive hours, computer research fees, photocopy charges, long-distance calls, courier costs, mileage for out-of-town counsel, and law clerk fees.

The applicant, Peter Best, as Estate Trustee During Litigation, sought to pass his accounts.

The objector, Steven Timothy Bryant, filed objections and requested an adjournment, which he failed to attend.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding the proposed affidavit evidence irrelevant and the objector's conduct abusive.

The court then granted the passing of accounts, finding all objections to compensation and estate accounting invalid.

The objector was made solely responsible for the costs of the hearing due to the frivolous nature of his objections and his failure to attend.

The appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed a trial decision regarding equalization of net family property, spousal support, and retroactive child support.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the net family property valuation and erred in allowing the equalization payment to be made over time without a finding of hardship.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support to the appellant, holding that the respondent's structured settlement annuity payments constituted income.

The cross-appeal regarding the exclusion of shares purchased with annuity funds was dismissed.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from operating an automobile repair shop, alleging contravention of a zoning by-law.

The respondents claimed legal non-conforming use.

The court found that the respondents failed to establish that an auto repair shop was operating at the property when the prohibiting by-law was enacted, as prior repairs were incidental to a towing business.

Furthermore, they failed to prove continuous operation of an auto repair shop after the towing business moved.

Consequently, the current use was not a legal non-conforming use, and the injunction was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application.

He alleged his former employer, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, failed to accommodate his return to work from a medical leave by improperly requiring him to attend an independent medical examination (IME).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the employer had a bona fide reason to question the treating physician's medical information and was justified in requesting an IME.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to admit post-application evidence regarding the accommodation process.

The applicant, a professional engineer, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's Complaints Committee refusing to refer his complaint against another engineer to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant alleged the other engineer engaged in professional misconduct by inappropriately sharing confidential shop drawings with a competitor and having a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court found that while the Complaints Committee's written reasons were defective for lacking transparency, the record before the Committee provided ample justification for its decision.

Applying the principles from Newfoundland Nurses, the court supplemented the reasons with the record and concluded the decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.