Harry Judah Levinson

The applicant sought to review a decision quashing his application for judicial review of the Métis Nation of Ontario's (MNO) refusal to grant him membership.

The motion judge had found that MNO was a private voluntary organization, not a public body subject to judicial review.

The applicant also moved to introduce fresh evidence of a 2019 agreement between MNO and Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding the fresh evidence would not have affected the result and agreeing that MNO remains a private entity subject to private law until formally recognized as a government.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's inability to work was due to his personality rather than his compensable chronic pain disorder, basing this on negative credibility findings.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable because it substituted its own opinion for uncontroverted medical evidence and failed to account for the Board's own policy describing the symptoms of the applicant's condition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision denying his application for citizenship in the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).

The MNO brought a motion to quash the application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the MNO is a private, voluntary organization and its membership decisions do not fall within the public law sphere.

Consequently, the decisions are not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The responding party, a Convention refugee, was convicted in absentia of drug trafficking in Albania.

Upon discovering the conviction, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship applied to vacate his refugee protection.

The responding party brought an application in the Superior Court seeking declarations that his foreign conviction was invalid and should not preclude him from obtaining Canadian status or benefits.

The moving party (Attorney General) brought a motion to permanently stay the Superior Court application.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application, finding that the matter was fundamentally an immigration dispute and that the Federal Court and the Immigration and Refugee Board were the appropriate forums to address the issues.

The moving party husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his jurisdictional challenge, struck his materials, and ordered him to pay temporary lump sum spousal support and costs.

He also sought a stay pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which properly found jurisdiction to order support under the Family Law Act despite a contested foreign annulment.

The motion for a stay was also dismissed as the RJR-MacDonald criteria were not met.