James A. Ramsay

The moving party's motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order was dismissed from the bench.

The court subsequently received written submissions on costs from the successful responding party.

The court awarded the responding party costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $500.

The plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal was dismissed from the bench.

The court issued directions setting a timetable for the parties to make written submissions regarding the costs of the motion for leave to appeal and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action.

The mother appealed a trial decision that transferred sole custody of her two children to the father due to her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

The trial judge had severely restricted the mother's access, making it conditional on her engaging with a specified expert for counselling and assessment, and ordered a review of access after six months.

The mother also appealed a $160,000 costs award made against her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to order a review, did not impermissibly delegate access determination, and properly exercised her discretion in awarding costs given the mother's bad faith conduct.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to the respondent for a hydro pole destroyed by the appellant's pickup truck.

The trial judge found the appellant liable under s 193 of the Highway Traffic Act because she failed to meet the onus of proving the damage was not caused by her negligence or improper conduct, despite finding she was not driving.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by rejecting the appellant's evidence that she did not consent to anyone driving her truck without giving good reasons.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge failed to appreciate uncontested evidence that the appellant's income had been reduced by about fifty percent and failed to consult the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

Given the lack of reasons, the court owed little deference to the trial judge.

The appeal was allowed, and spousal support was fixed at $525 per month based on the SSAG.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that reinstated the respondent's benefits.

The Director argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent filed her appeal more than two years after the Director's decision, contrary to the one-year absolute limit in O. Reg. 222/98.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the regulation valid and holding that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by hearing the late appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

The appellant former landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her to pay damages for a bad faith eviction, arguing she was denied natural justice.

The initial hearing proceeded in her absence after she was served by mail at the rental unit, despite the Board and the respondent knowing she lived in Florida for most of the year.

The Divisional Court held that proceeding with the hearing when the Board knew the appellant had no actual notice constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Board's decisions were set aside and the matter was remitted for a rehearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Grievance Board, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his wrongful dismissal grievance because he had not been employed by the Crown for at least 12 months.

The applicant argued that new legislation, which removed the 12-month requirement for employees not on probation, should apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that jurisdiction is a substantive matter and the former legislative provisions governed the applicant's crystallized rights at the time of his dismissal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appeal order of the Director's Delegate, arguing that the Delegate erred in relying on obiter comments from the Court of Appeal's decision in Liberty Mutual v. Fernandes regarding an insurer's ability to access the dispute resolution process to challenge a CAT DAC decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's comments in Fernandes were an integral part of its decision and constituted binding authority.

The court concluded that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a family law trial decision, seeking a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge failed to mark an actuary's report as an exhibit, failed to assist her as a self-represented litigant, made errors regarding equalization and pension splitting, and failed to grant a divorce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the exhibit omission was a harmless technical defect and that the trial judge fulfilled her duties to the self-represented parties.

The court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or discretionary decisions regarding support and equalization.

The appellants filed a motion for leave to appeal an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court noted that under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, tenants have an appeal as of right to the Divisional Court, and the court has no jurisdiction to grant or refuse leave.

The court construed the notice of motion as a notice of appeal and directed the registrar to treat it as an appeal as of right.

The moving party, a solicitor acting for the applicant in a family law proceeding, brought a motion on her own behalf for leave to appeal an interlocutory order citing her for contempt of court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that the solicitor failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings or the reasons for her subsequent contempt conviction.

The court held that the record was entirely inadequate to assess the correctness of the motion judge's decision or to determine whether the alleged contempt was civil or criminal, thereby failing to establish the court's jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that adjourned a family law trial to allow the Office of the Children's Lawyer time to investigate and participate.

The moving party argued the adjournment gave the responding party a tactical advantage and that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and noting the proposed appeal lacked public importance.

The City of Port Colborne sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which found that Nyon Oil Inc. had standing to appeal the City's refusal to amend its official plan and zoning by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and erred in finding Nyon was an 'applicant' under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine its own scope and reasonably concluded that the City acted as Nyon's agent in applying for the amendments.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of two orders made under the Building Code Act and moved to compel a building inspector to answer questions on cross-examination regarding an information sworn to obtain a search warrant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the search warrant information was irrelevant to the judicial review application, which concerned the legal validity of the initial inspection and orders.

The court directed that the application be heard at the next sittings of the Divisional Court.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the Crown's decision to withdraw criminal charges he had initiated as a private prosecutor.

The matter was transferred to the Divisional Court by a Superior Court judge.

Both parties brought a motion to remit the application back to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application was criminal in nature and, pursuant to Rule 43 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules, should be heard by a judge of the Superior Court.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision refusing to strike portions of the respondent's statement of claim.

The respondent, a child passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother, sued the mother's statutory accident benefits insurer for damages arising from the insurer's denial of the mother's claim, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and negligence resulting in the loss of her mother's care and guidance.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the respondent could claim mental distress damages for breach of a peace of mind contract, that the insurer owed the respondent a duty of good faith regarding her mother's claim, and that the alleged harm was foreseeable in tort.

The plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order denying production of a family counsellor's notes.

Although the plaintiff's former solicitor failed to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed time, resulting in an eight-year delay, the court found that the plaintiff maintained her intention to appeal.

The court concluded that the presumption of prejudice due to the delay was rebutted and that the justice of the case required granting the extension, as the appeal had merit and the evidence sought was important to the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiffs booked a cruise with the defendant through an Ontario travel agent, embarking in Italy and disembarking in England.

After cash was allegedly stolen from their stateroom, they sued the defendant in Ontario.

The defendant appealed the Small Claims Court's dismissal of its motion for summary judgment on the basis of territorial jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that under the Athens Convention, the action could not be brought in Canada because the defendant did not have a place of business in Canada, and the motion judge erred in piercing the corporate veil to attribute a parent company's Canadian business to the defendant.