Elizabeth M. Stewart

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of his judicial review and appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to February 28, 2024, on peremptory terms.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs thrown away and to pay $5,000 into court pending further order.

Failure to make these payments would allow the respondent to move to quash the proceedings.

The unrepresented appellant, through their litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Chalmers J. dated November 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered for or against any party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Leiper J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties requested costs but failed to provide a Costs Outline as required, resulting in no costs being awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated July 18, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs for or against any party.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the school board's decision finding he breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to in camera meetings and alleged bias of the Chair, and that the decision unreasonably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness, the in camera meetings were statutorily permitted due to related litigation, and the board reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter rights with its statutory obligations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board's decision to stop her presentation at a public meeting.

The applicant had been approved to speak about transparency in a library review process but digressed to critique specific books discussing gender identity.

The chair stopped her presentation on the basis that it could violate human rights legislation and board policies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, did not breach procedural fairness, and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the board reasonably balanced the applicant's freedom of expression with its statutory objectives and policies regarding equity and inclusion.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the motion judge dated June 6, 2023.

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

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated June 6, 2023.

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

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.

The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 13, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her claims of workplace discrimination and reprisal against her former employer.

She alleged the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the HRTO's procedural rulings, including the admission of hearsay evidence and late-filed documents, were fair and within its discretion.

The court concluded the HRTO's dismissal of the discrimination and reprisal allegations was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of 'full net pay' for disabled firefighters under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer could deduct notional OMERS pension plan contributions from the calculation of full net pay, even when the employee had a disability waiver in place, to ensure continuity of take-home pay rather than providing a windfall.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was justified and unassailable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two unreported decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written submissions of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party 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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting a typographical error in the neutral citation of the underlying reasons for decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions that summarily dismissed his complaints against various City of Toronto officials and departments.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race and place of origin regarding the City's handling of his zoning by-law inquiries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the HRTO's conclusions that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success and lacked a factual link to Code-protected grounds were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. dated May 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,000 to the litigation guardian for the plaintiff and $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Papageorgiou J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties failed to provide a Costs Outline.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Carey J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay the responding party's costs fixed at $3,000.