Janet Leiper

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Penny J. dated January 8, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was filed, the court ordered no costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Centa.

The respondent requested the court to dismiss the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the motion under Rule 2.1, noting such dismissals are reserved for the clearest of cases.

Instead, the court ordered the moving parties to file their materials for the leave to appeal motion to be considered in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The applicants, a horse owner and trainer, sought judicial review of a Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP) decision upholding penalties for their horse testing above the permitted threshold for total carbon dioxide (TCO2).

They argued they were denied procedural fairness regarding disclosure of testing laboratory records, that the HRAP decision was unreasonable, and that the rule establishing the TCO2 threshold was ultra vires.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness given the HRAP's efforts to mitigate late disclosure, concluding the HRAP's reliance on the testing evidence was reasonable, and holding that the rule was within the Registrar's statutory mandate to uphold the integrity of horse racing.

The Township of Oro-Medonte and a ratepayers' alliance appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that repealed a zoning by-law amendment aimed at regulating short-term rentals.

The Tribunal had found the by-law created a new land use prohibition that was overbroad and not in the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness, correctly interpreted the existing zoning by-law, and made no error of law in concluding the amendment did not represent good planning.

The applicant sought an uncontested trial on parenting, support, section 7 expenses, division of property, and divorce.

The respondent failed to file an answer or comply with previous court orders.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the children, imputed income to the respondent for child and spousal support, and ordered the respondent to be solely responsible for a joint line of credit and to pay full indemnity costs due to his bad faith conduct and non-participation.

The court declined to make a final equalization payment order due to insufficient financial disclosure from the respondent, requiring further information from the applicant to finalize certain financial orders.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 20, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $8,213.01.

The moving party respondent sought leave to appeal an order of Myers J. dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding party/applicants and $5,000 payable to the respondents Hsin Hua Hsieh and Ying Ting Lin, for a total costs award of $10,000.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding them bound by collective agreements as successor employers under s. 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the principals engaged in a scheme to establish a non-union company and that a sale of the business occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding the principal's role and the lack of prejudice from delay were supported by the record.

The tenant appealed five separate Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders to the Divisional Court, obtaining automatic stays of eviction.

The tenant failed to perfect the appeals, order transcripts, or pay rent and arrears as directed by the court.

The court found the tenant was abusing the court's process to delay eviction while profiting from subtenancies.

Two appeals were dismissed as abandoned, and the remaining three were quashed for delay and abuse of process.

The stays of eviction were lifted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the landlords.

The self-represented applicant, who is incarcerated, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion for default judgment against his former lawyer due to improper service.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that while the applicant formed the intention to appeal in time, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

Following the successful motion to quash the tenant's appeal as an abuse of process, the landlord sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,264.74.

The tenant made no submissions on costs.

The court noted the tenant's conduct lengthened the proceedings but also recognized that some additional time was related to the tenant's requests for accommodation due to mobility issues.

The court reduced the requested amount and ordered the tenant to pay costs of $13,000 to the landlord.

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order, an order imputing income for child support, a dismissal of his request to change the child's name, and a substantial indemnity costs award of $161,606.69.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in determining the child's best interests, imputing income based on the father's failure to seek employment, or awarding costs based on findings of bad faith and domestic violence.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dubé J. dated October 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order granting the respondent interim sole decision-making authority over their child.

The applicant was two weeks late in filing his materials, citing confusion over timelines and a brief period of incarceration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the delay was short and explained, the proposed appeal lacked merit, would cause prejudice to the respondent and the child, and was not in the interests of justice given the high-conflict nature of the family litigation.

The appellants, Canada School of Public Service and Pierre Leduc, appealed an order dismissing their motion to stay or dismiss the respondent's claims for breach of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion.

The motion judge had found that the essential character of the privacy torts, which related to the employer's actions in involving the police, did not arise from the collective agreement and were therefore actionable in court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the evidentiary record did not establish the police contact was part of the employment context.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.