Jillian M. Siskind

The appellants' appeal from a decision of the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was adjourned to April 14, 2026, for a half-day hearing, through no fault of the parties.

The appellants brought an application seeking public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to provide such funding violates their Charter rights.

Ontario successfully moved to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler v. Ontario definitively resolved the issue.

On appeal, the appellants argued there was a reasonable prospect of revisiting Adler under the Bedford/Carter test due to new evidence of antisemitism and developments in international and constitutional law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proposed new evidence did not fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate in Adler, and that s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 remains a comprehensive code for denominational school rights.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay after the appeal was perfected approximately ten months late.

The court applied the test for dismissing an appeal for delay and found that the appellants had maintained an intention to appeal, the delay was largely due to counsel's inaction, and the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the delay.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that ordered the issuance of insurance agent licences to the respondent.

The respondent had previously made false statements on his licence applications regarding his termination from a bank and had conducted unlicensed insurance activity.

The Tribunal found that despite the misconduct, the respondent was suitable to be licensed subject to strict supervision conditions and a $10,000 penalty.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The Tribunal was entitled to substitute its opinion for that of the FSRA and properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's positive employment record and the context of his misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, parents elected to a school council, brought an application for judicial review after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) disbanded the council and ordered a new election due to a procedural irregularity.

The Divisional Court held that the TDSB lacked the statutory authority under the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00 to disband a school council or review its elections.

The court granted a declaration that the TDSB's decision was made without jurisdiction, but declined to grant further remedies as the school year had already ended.

The appellants, operators of a long-term care home, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion).

The respondent had posted approximately 100 tweets over three years on anonymous accounts alleging elder abuse and serious wrongdoing at the facility.

The motion judge found the tweets related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made reviewable errors in her section 137.1(4) analysis by failing to properly assess whether the defamation claim had merit and whether the appellants had suffered harm, and by assuming the respondent's expression had value without conducting the necessary preliminary analysis.

The respondents sought public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to fund them breached their Charter rights under ss. 2(a) and 15(1).

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler definitively decided the issues.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a reasonable prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test for revisiting binding precedent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on facts and circumstances that were not new and in questioning the force of the majority analysis in Adler.

The Electrical Safety Authority appealed the acquittal of Turano’s Home Improvement Ltd. at trial.

The trial judge had acquitted the corporate defendant, finding that its identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the absence of "Ltd" on the contract letterhead.

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred by focusing too narrowly on the letterhead and failing to consider the totality of the evidence, which included witness testimony and documentary evidence confirming the corporate entity's involvement.

The appeal was granted, and the corporate defendant was found guilty on the dismissed counts.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their registrations for breaching conditions and ungovernability.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside that order.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's application of the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, no costs were ordered.

On a motion to strike a constitutional application challenging Ontario's funding of Roman Catholic and public schools to the exclusion of Jewish day schools and other independent faith-based schools, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the applicants could not satisfy the Bedford and Carter threshold for revisiting binding precedent.

The court found a reasonable prospect that changes in constitutional interpretation, state neutrality, international law, minority-rights jurisprudence, and the amendment adding s. 93A could fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate as against Ontario.

The claim against Canada was struck because education funding is a provincial matter, Canada had taken no impugned legislative action, and unincorporated treaty obligations were not directly enforceable against it in this proceeding.

The motion therefore succeeded only in part.