E. Stewart

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Varpio J. dated April 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Valente J. dated April 19, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated March 29, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $3,500 to the moving parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and awarded the moving party $2,000 in costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an associate justice's costs orders and an order dismissing a motion to increase the pre-judgment interest rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and noted that leave to appeal the pre-judgment interest order was not required.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Law Society Tribunal refusing his paralegal licence application after it had already been granted.

The Law Society discovered the applicant had failed to disclose a prior disciplinary sanction from the Real Estate Council of Ontario on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted its governing statute and by-laws to allow for the post-issuance refusal of a licence where an applicant deliberately makes a false declaration.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had a full opportunity to be heard at the licensing hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation owning a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent leaseholder was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued that the respondent, as a 'member' of the non-share corporation, fell within the statutory exclusion for a 'shareholder' of a corporation that owns the residential complex.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation that a 'member' of a not-for-profit corporation is not equivalent to a 'shareholder' for the purposes of the exclusion.

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a nine-month suspension for a lawyer convicted of possessing child pornography.

The appellant argued the original hearing panel lacked jurisdiction because it did not include a lay adjudicator, contrary to O. Reg. 167/07.

The Divisional Court majority agreed, finding the panel was improperly constituted and lacked jurisdiction, as there was no evidence the Chair exercised discretion to depart from the mandatory requirement.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant landlords appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding they terminated a tenancy in bad faith and denying two subsequent review requests.

The landlords failed to attend the initial hearing, claiming confusion over multiple hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law.

The Board reasonably proceeded in the landlords' absence, considered their late-filed evidence, and properly denied the review requests due to the landlords' lack of diligence in failing to attend or seek clarification.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's refusal to deduct a CRA tax payment from her monthly employment earnings for ODSP purposes.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the payment and breached procedural fairness by not allowing her former spouse to represent her while she was at work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to consider the tax payment during a later review of business earnings.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had ample notice of the hearing and her former spouse was permitted to assist her.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Chalmers J. dated March 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of pay for personal leave days taken by a locomotive engineer under the Canada Labour Code.

The arbitrator found that because the collective agreement did not specifically provide a method for calculating personal leave pay, the default calculation under s. 17(a) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations applied, rather than the 'basic day' rate argued by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation and the collective agreement was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of ensuring employees do not suffer a wage loss when taking personal leave.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which had rejected a joint submission on penalty for a member who pleaded guilty to professional misconduct involving inappropriate comments.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had substituted its own penalty, finding the proposed three-month suspension unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee erred in law by applying a 'fitness test' rather than the stringent 'public interest test' established in Anthony-Cook.

The Court found that the joint submission did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered that the jointly proposed penalty be imposed.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions upholding the denial of funding for medical cannabis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Director had no discretion to fund medical cannabis because it lacks a Drug Identification Number (DIN) and is not listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary.

The Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies and that the appellant's Human Rights Code discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of funding applied equally to all ODSP recipients.

The moving parties, operators of a dog-sledding business, sought to set aside a single judge's decision refusing to extend a stay of an Animal Care Review Board costs order regarding the care of their removed dogs.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's balance of convenience analysis, which heavily weighed the mounting public costs of caring for the dogs.

The panel also rejected a request to disqualify one of its members based on prior involvement in a related judicial review, and admitted but gave no weight to fresh evidence of a new statutory application for the dogs' return.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her child in need of protection and placing the child in extended society care.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging ineffective assistance of former counsel, claiming she was coerced into signing a Statement of Agreed Facts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier and did not meet the relaxed test for child protection cases.

The court upheld the motions judge's decision to admit the Statement of Agreed Facts and grant summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial and no error in principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board's decision denying her request to make an oral presentation at a board meeting regarding the flying of the pride flag and transgender issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an egregious and unexplained 21-month delay in perfecting the application.

In the alternative, the court found the board's decision was reasonable, as the proposed presentation contradicted the board's statutory duties to promote an inclusive school climate, and the board minimally impaired the applicant's freedom of expression by offering to distribute her presentation in written form.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of J.E. Mills J. dated December 15, 2022.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated April 13, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,874.14.