James A. Ramsay

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision awarding rent arrears to the landlord.

The original Board member resigned before issuing a decision, prompting the Board chair to order a new hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the new hearing and subsequently appealed, arguing the Board erred by not issuing the original member's decision and that he was denied procedural fairness due to lost exhibits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or denial of procedural fairness, as the Board has statutory authority to order a hearing de novo.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to complete his examination for discovery, arguing that as three separate defendants, they were entitled to 7 hours each for a total of 21 hours under Rule 31.05.1(1).

The plaintiff, who had already been examined for 5.3 hours, agreed to submit to a total of 9 hours.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a mechanical application of the rule would be disproportionate because the defendants shared an identical interest, filed a joint defence, and were represented by one lawyer.

The court held that 9 hours was reasonably required and reserved costs of $3,500 to the trial judge.

The moving parties brought an ex parte motion for an interim injunction to suspend the coming into force of provisions in Bill 97 that would exempt the Premier's cell phone call logs from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The moving parties argued that the legislation violated section 2(b) of the Charter and that the records might be destroyed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no arguable case, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the government.

The court awarded costs of $1,500 to the Attorney General.

The plaintiff sued the police service, the police services board, the chief of police, and three uniformed officers for battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution arising from a welfare check in the early morning hours of November 23, 2014.

Officers responded to a 911 call from a woman in the plaintiff's bathroom and, after the plaintiff pushed an officer, arrested him and used force to bring him under control.

The court found the plaintiff not to be a credible witness, identifying numerous inconsistencies between his testimony, his prior statements, and the objective medical evidence.

The court accepted the officers' account that the plaintiff initiated physical contact, that only necessary force was used in effecting the arrest, and that the officers entered lawfully.

Judgment was granted to the defendants.

The applicant association applied under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001 to quash the Township of Wainfleet's Short-Term Rental By-law.

The applicant argued the by-law was illegal, enacted in bad faith, and conflicted with the Municipal Act and the Planning Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law was enacted after extensive public consultation, did not prohibit short-term rentals, and did not conflict with provincial legislation.

The administrative penalties were found to be coercive rather than punitive, and the by-law regulated business operations rather than land use.

The applicant association applied under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001 to quash the Township of Wainfleet's Short-Term Rental By-law.

The applicant argued the by-law was illegal, enacted in bad faith, and conflicted with the Municipal Act and Planning Act.

The court found the by-law was enacted after extensive public consultation, did not prohibit short-term rentals, and did not conflict with provincial legislation.

The administrative penalties were deemed coercive rather than punitive, and the by-law was found not to be discriminatory.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the Township on a partial indemnity basis.

The accused, charged with murder as a co-principal in the beating death of a fellow inmate, challenged the constitutional validity of s. 17 of the Criminal Code insofar as it excludes murder from the statutory defence of duress.

He submitted that the court should read down the section to strike the exclusion.

The court noted that common law duress does not apply to a principal charged with murder and that the Court of Appeal in Aravena had indicated, in obiter, that the murder exception in s. 17 must be found unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, the court concluded that Parliament's deliberate choice to maintain the exclusion, most recently reaffirmed in 1983, was justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter, drawing a bright line that a threat of potential harm cannot outweigh the certain taking of a life.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order reducing the respondent's obligation to pay interest on child support arrears.

The principal arrears had been satisfied, but over $10,000 in interest remained.

The motion judge reduced the interest owed to $2,229, payable at $75 per month, citing the respondent's limited income and the decrease in market interest rates over the past 20 years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that varying post-judgment interest was within the judge's discretion under the Family Law Act and Courts of Justice Act, and the decision reflected no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a Small Claims Court deputy judge regarding document production and costs.

The underlying action involved a rental car company suing the insurer after coverage was denied for a rental car accident due to the insured's failure to cooperate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances, excess of jurisdiction, or denial of natural justice that would warrant intervention in a Small Claims Court interlocutory order.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial where the trial judge would determine the admissibility of the subpoenaed documents.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that required it to pay the proceeds of a vehicle sale into court as a condition of an adjournment.

The Divisional Court declined to grant relief, finding that the applicant's conduct in seeking judicial review was an unnecessary step that delayed the resolution of the underlying motion on its merits.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Two consolidated applications concerning the estate of the deceased, Itaf Karim.

The widower sought to invalidate a holograph will and annul the certificate of administration issued to the daughter.

The daughter sought access to the safety deposit box and other relief.

The court found that an undated draft will, for which a certificate of administration had been issued, was not the true will of the deceased.

The court determined that a dated Arabic will deposited in the safety deposit box on May 27, 2024, reflected the deceased's true testamentary intentions.

The court revoked the certificate of administration, declared the May 27, 2024 will as the valid will, and ordered distribution of the estate according to its terms, with the residue passing to the widower.

The respondent husband moved for partial summary judgment or a decision on a question of law regarding whether a pay equity award received by the applicant wife should be included in her net family property.

The court found that the portion of the pay equity award attributable to pre-separation wages, less amounts for injury to dignity, interest, and post-separation work, forms part of the applicant’s net family property.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The defendant, Hydro One Networks Inc., moved for a temporary stay of an action brought by Nyon Oil Inc. and 1170367 Ontario Inc. regarding land ownership and rights to operate electricity transmission infrastructure.

The court considered the overlap and differences between the Superior Court action and a parallel Ontario Energy Board proceeding, ultimately granting a one-year stay to allow the Board to determine expropriation and related issues first.

The court found that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the ongoing operation of the transmission system and that a stay would avoid inconsistent findings and protect the public interest.

The applicants, 14 homeless individuals, sought a declaration that the City of Hamilton's enforcement of its Parks by-law from August 2021 to August 2023 breached their Charter rights under s.7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and s.15 (equality), and sought damages.

The applicants argued they were prevented from staying overnight and forced to move daily due to insufficient accessible shelter beds.

The court found that applicants were not prevented from staying overnight and declined to extend Charter protection to allow indefinite daytime encampments, disagreeing with prior jurisprudence (Victoria v. Adams, Waterloo v. Persons Unknown) on the basis that encampments are inherently dangerous and unsanitary, and the City's actions were not in bad faith.

The court also found no s.15 violation, as homelessness is not an enumerated or analogous ground, and the by-law did not differentially treat disadvantaged groups.

The application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that he was a public interest litigant and applied the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to her relationship with the respondent.

The appellant claimed she lived in the unit and shared a kitchen, which would exempt her under s. 5(i) of the Act.

The Board accepted the respondent's evidence that the appellant did not live on the premises.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its refusal to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

The estate trustees appealed a decision finding the deceased's grandson to be a dependant and ordering the transfer of the deceased's home to him as support.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of dependency, noting the deceased provided shelter, moral guidance, and some financial support to the vulnerable grandson.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the issue of remedy, finding the application judge failed to consider the deceased's testamentary intentions regarding the family home.

Instead of transferring the property, the court ordered a monetary award of $152,000 to be paid from the estate.

The appellants appealed a decision under the Business Corporations Act regarding a deadlocked dental corporation.

The application judge had found no oppression by the respondent and ordered the corporation to be wound up essentially in terms of the buyout provisions of a draft shareholders' agreement.

On appeal, the appellants argued the judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address the relief sought regarding the sale of shares.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's rulings were based on the evidence and constituted a reasonable exercise of discretion.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The respondent, a lawyer, was convicted of contempt of court for failing to comply with an order requiring him to answer questions and fulfill undertakings regarding the administration of his mother's estate.

After five years of non-compliance, which the court characterized as a callous disregard for its authority, the court imposed a sentence of 5 days in gaol, a $5,000 fine, an order preventing further steps in the application until compliance, and substantial indemnity costs of $14,925 to the applicants.

The gaoler brought a detention review under s.525 of the Criminal Code for the accused, who was detained on drug charges.

The trial had already commenced and was nearing judgment.

The court dismissed the review, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s.525 because the trial had started, and any bail application at that stage must be made to the trial judge under s.523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.