Janet Leiper

The applicants brought an application against the Toronto District School Board regarding an error in the lottery admission process for Elementary Alternative Schools that excluded equity-deserving students.

The TDSB rectified the error, but the applicants did not understand the rectification steps until reviewing the TDSB's responding materials.

The applicants subsequently abandoned their application and sought costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants $20,000 in costs, finding that the TDSB failed to clearly communicate its solution prior to filing its responding materials, making it reasonable for the applicants to pursue the application until that point.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated March 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the aggregate amount of $20,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal both orders.

No costs were awarded as the moving party did not seek them.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the motion judge dated May 8, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The moving party, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought two motions for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court regarding summary judgment and certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded agreed aggregate costs of $25,000 to the responding party.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was final and should have been directed to the Court of Appeal.

Alternatively, the court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious on its face, as it sought to relitigate matters already adjudicated in prior proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting loss of earnings benefits to a firefighter who was terminated for cause but subsequently diagnosed with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal applied the 'worker conduct' line of cases, finding that the worker's condition rendered him unemployable and that his loss of earnings resulted from the compensable injury rather than his termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and its assessment of the medical evidence were reasonable.

The applicant was awarded loss of earning benefits by the WSIB, which included an indexed amount calculated according to a WSIB policy.

The applicant submitted an Intent to Object to the indexation calculation, but the WSIB dismissed it, stating that its policy was not subject to appeal.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the WSIB's decision unreasonable because it ignored section 126 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, which expressly contemplates the WSIAT reviewing Board policies.

The court set aside the WSIB's decision and directed the matter to proceed to appeal, emphasizing the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The appellants appealed a Capital Markets Tribunal decision finding that their business of trading in Contracts for Difference (CFDs) constituted trading and advising in unregistered securities.

The appellants argued that the CFDs were not 'investment contracts' because the CFD providers were counterparties and did not share in profits or losses, thus failing the 'common enterprise' component of the legal test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied a flexible approach to the investment contract test and made no palpable or overriding error in finding that the investors were dependent on the CFD providers, thereby establishing a common enterprise.

The applicants raised a preliminary objection seeking the recusal of Leiper J. from the panel on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants argued that Leiper J.'s involvement in two prior decisions involving the same parties, including a refusal to grant a stay that was later partially reversed by the Court of Appeal, met the threshold for disqualification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the objection, finding that the applicants failed to meet the heavy burden of rebutting the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that prior involvement alone does not establish bias and there were no allegations of improper conduct.

The moving party, a crypto asset trading platform, sought a stay of an Investigation Order and Summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission pending judicial review.

The moving party argued the summons was overbroad, an abuse of process, and violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, noting the reduced expectation of privacy in regulated business records, and concluded the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy to allow the landlords to demolish and rebuild the house.

The tenant had failed to attend the eviction hearing and subsequently sought a review, which the Board dismissed after finding he had been properly served with notice and did not genuinely intend to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding service were supported by the record and that there was no error of law or breach of procedural fairness.

The moving party sought the release of a transcript of a case conference held in the context of family law proceedings, which led to a motion for child support.

The motion was unopposed.

The court ordered the release of the transcript and approved the parties' proposed timetable for serving and filing materials on the leave to appeal motion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal revoking her mortgage agent licence.

The Tribunal found she had engaged in a repeated pattern of dishonesty, including failing to disclose a previous real estate registration revocation and a criminal conviction for obstructing justice, and misleading investigators.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal should have applied a higher standard of proof and erred in its penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the civil standard of proof applies regardless of the seriousness of the allegations, and found no palpable or overriding error in the Tribunal's decision to revoke the licence.

The defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The statement of defence was struck after the defendant engaged in a months-long pattern of delaying and frustrating the scheduling of examinations for discovery, despite warnings from plaintiff's counsel and a case management judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion.

The court confirmed that striking the pleading was a proportionate response to the defendant's egregious and ongoing dilatory conduct.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against two physicians.

The appellant alleged the physicians used improper OHIP billing codes and improperly disclosed his personal health details to the police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the incorrect use of OHIP billing codes does not ground an action in negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, and that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to review CPSO investigations or grant remedies under the Charter or federal privacy legislation.

The court also found the appellant was not denied procedural fairness.