Elizabeth M. Stewart

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $2,500 to the defendant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as moot because in-person civil jury trials were anticipated to resume, and the action remained scheduled for October 2022.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the moving parties' right to re-submit the motion if circumstances prevented the trial from proceeding with a jury as scheduled.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

A motions judge struck her affidavit containing evidence not before the HRTO and subsequently dismissed her motion to adduce further evidence as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The applicant brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside those decisions.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time and that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in applying the general rule against admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the employer's use of key performance indicators (KPIs) to determine eligibility for a telework program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The arbitrator had found that Letter of Understanding No. 11 (LOU 11) of the collective agreement, which governed monitoring and measurement, did not apply.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable, as it failed to account for the plain wording of LOU 11 and the fact that KPIs are a form of measurement.

The award was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

Two groups of landowners appealed the Surveyor General's confirmation of a survey that extended road allowances to the water's edge of Georgian Bay, separating their properties from the beach.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by ignoring a previous Divisional Court decision, misapplying common law principles of accretion, and rejecting estoppel arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding the Surveyor General made reasonable findings of fact supported by evidence, including that no accretion had occurred and that the original 1820s survey intended the road allowances to reach the water.

The court held the standard of review was correctness for law and palpable and overriding error for fact, and found no such errors.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation RGI Review Body that refused to review her rent-geared-to-income calculations from 2010 to 2017.

The Review Body had determined that the request was beyond the 12-month deadline and did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances.

The Divisional Court found that the Review Body unreasonably interpreted its own rules by concluding that a hard 12-month cap applied even if exceptional circumstances existed.

The court also held that the Review Body fettered its discretion and failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that exceptional circumstances were not met.

The application was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him as an unauthorized occupant.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused an adjournment, denied his request for human rights accommodation, and removed him from the virtual hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was the author of his own misfortune due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to follow the adjudicator's directions.

The Court also found no errors of law in the Board's determination that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant rather than a tenant.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which affirmed the Hearing Division's findings of professional misconduct and the revocation of his licence.

The appellant had fabricated disbursement invoices and misrepresented billable hours to Legal Aid Ontario.

He argued that his actions were impulsive and caused by mental health disabilities, raising a human rights accommodation defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and no palpable and overriding error in the Hearing Division's conclusion that the misconduct was calculated and not causally connected to his mental illness.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that no costs be awarded.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $15,000 to the responding plaintiff.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving party and the City of Toronto.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $2,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 7, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated November 22, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded her only $1,897.89 on a claim of over $880,000 against the respondent, who was a guarantor of a second mortgage.

The appellant sought to add various payments she allegedly made for repairs, renovations, and to keep a first mortgage in good standing to the principal of the second mortgage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings and no errors of law in rejecting the appellant's claims, including her late assertion of equitable subrogation.

The cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's decision to award no costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $10,000 in defamation damages to the respondent seniors' residence.

The appellant had published an article on his blog alleging financial irregularities, fraud, and elder abuse at the residence.

The trial judge found the statements about elder abuse were defamatory and not protected by the defences of justification, fair comment, or responsible communication on a matter of public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the defamation defences.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Shaw J. on September 14, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $1,500.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated November 18, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs to the responding parties in the all-inclusive amount of $7,500.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.