John R. R. Jennings

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that stayed their action for unpaid health and welfare benefits to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The dispute arose following a union raid.

The Divisional Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court but dismissed the application, agreeing that the OLRB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations issues, should first determine its jurisdiction over the matter.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and support, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions.

The husband had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the wife than the eventual judgment, engaging the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules and supporting substantial indemnity recovery.

Although the husband sought up to $792,447.47 in full recovery costs, the court found the claim disproportionate given the relatively brief and uncomplicated four‑day trial.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council and reviewing comparable family law authorities, the court reduced the amount significantly.

The wife was ordered to pay $265,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, with payment tied to the sale of her home unless an undertaking was not provided.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board, which classified their properties offering extended stay accommodations as hotels under s. 17(2) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court applied the test for leave to appeal, finding that while the question of law was important, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation.

The plain language of the statute clearly caught the subject properties within the definition of a hotel.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under rule 21.01 seeking a declaration that her injuries constituted an "accident" under s.2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, thereby entitling her to statutory accident benefits.

The incident occurred when the plaintiff was injured while a taxi driver attempted to move a motorized scooter to transport a passenger to a wheelchair-accessible taxi.

The court applied the two-part test requiring that the injury arise from the use or operation of an automobile and that such use directly cause the impairment.

Although the taxi was being used for its intended purpose, the court held the injury was caused by the driver's handling of the scooter, an intervening act unrelated to the use or operation of the taxi.

The motion for a declaratory order was therefore dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their summary judgment motion.

The underlying action involved a claim for $1.4 million for breach of a television series production and distribution agreement.

The summary judgment motion had been dismissed because the motions judge found that the discoverability of the claim required multiple findings of fact on conflicting evidence, which could only be achieved at trial.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the full appreciation test and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Following a long marriage with three children, the court determined property equalization, spousal support, and child support issues after the parties agreed on a parenting plan.

The primary dispute concerned valuation of significant real estate assets for net family property calculation.

The court preferred one expert appraisal over another and determined the values of the matrimonial home and a farm property, resulting in an equalization payment payable to the applicant.

Despite the long marriage and the applicant’s role as homemaker, spousal support was denied due to the applicant’s substantial assets and investment income.

Guideline child support was ordered based on the respondent’s reduced income following job loss, and the parties were required to share section 7 expenses equally.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his defamation action for delay at a status hearing.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because he was waiting for criminal charges of sexual assault to be resolved, but the Master found the criminal charges related to a different incident than the one pleaded in the defamation action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly applied the law, properly rejected the appellant's excuse for delay, and reasonably found actual prejudice to the respondents.

The appellants, former agents of the respondent insurance company, appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification as a class action.

They claimed termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, alleging constructive dismissal due to the employer's change in its business model.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the claims required highly individualized inquiries regarding the impact of the changes, reasonable notice, and mitigation, and therefore lacked commonality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for directions to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a class action certification order pending the disposition of its appeal of a summary judgment order to the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to dismiss the leave motion for failing to name a hearing date.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions, holding that the certification order frames the proceedings and the leave motion must be heard expeditiously before the summary judgment appeal.

The court declined to dismiss the leave motion on technical grounds and ordered it to be perfected and heard at the earliest opportunity.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment.

The court applied the four-part test under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a fixed intention to appeal, a good explanation for the delay, merit to the appeal, and no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to meet at least three of the four requirements, noting a lack of fixed intention, unexplained delay, and no obvious merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff had sued the moving party, a lawyer, in negligence for knowingly breaching a Mareva order by paying trust funds to his client.

The motion judge found that the claim raised a potentially novel cause of action that should be determined on a fully developed record at trial.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the recent Court of Appeal decision in Combined Air did not change the principle that novel causes of action are best determined at trial, and denied leave to appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the respondent union was a 'trade union' within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent could not be an organization of employees because its constitution allowed independent employee organizations to be members, and that it lacked an identifiable set of rules due to irregularities in the election of its founding officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the founding members could unanimously waive or vary the provisions of the union's constitution.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Public Service Grievance Board decision denying him statutory benefits for terminated or laid-off employees.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the applicant's employment ended by mutual agreement and in exchange for valuable consideration, rather than by termination or layoff.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that the respondent's notice requesting arbitration was filed within the 90-day limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, agreeing that the mediator's report was 'given' when received by the parties, and that delivering the notice to the general reception of the Financial Services Commission satisfied the filing rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order of a motions judge that set aside a Master's order requiring affiants to re-attend cross-examinations to answer refusals.

The motions judge had found that the Master erred in principle by improperly applying the principle of proportionality to enlarge the scope of cross-examination beyond what is permissible.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order.

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 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.