E. Stewart

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 appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sugunasiri J. dated January 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that time-barred her application for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The LAT found the two-year limitation period expired because the appellant received the denial letter on the day it was written.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the LAT erred in law by making a material finding of fact without evidence and by reversing the onus of proof onto the appellant to show when the letter was received.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for a catastrophic impairment designation following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by failing to properly assess his mental and pain disorders and by ignoring key psychiatric evidence.

The LAT had subsequently issued a reconsideration decision that supplemented its original reasons and addressed these alleged errors, concluding that even if it had erred, the result would not change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT acted within its jurisdiction under its reconsideration rules to review the evidence in light of alleged legal errors and confirm its original decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder at work.

The Tribunal had expanded his initial entitlement to include bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear but upheld the termination of benefits as of September 2015 and denied entitlement for left shoulder impingement and subsequent surgery.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, intelligible, and transparent, as they were supported by the evidentiary record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace on long-term disability, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommending her removal from office.

The Council found she committed judicial misconduct by practicing law without a license or insurance on three occasions.

The applicant argued the hearing panel breached procedural fairness by not granting a further adjournment and that the penalty was unreasonable due to her cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing was procedurally fair and the recommendation for removal was reasonable given the lack of reliable medical evidence supporting a cognitive deficit and the severity of the misconduct.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sheard J. dated January 10, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $7,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated November 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party failed to file a Costs Outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not file materials and the Public Guardian and Trustee did not seek costs, no costs were ordered.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of McEwen J. dated January 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court declined to award costs to the successful responding parties because they failed to file a Costs Outline.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not satisfy the Palmer test as it was not relevant to the test for granting leave to appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal and requests for ancillary relief were also dismissed.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed his requests to reactivate deferred human rights applications and denied reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to reactivate his applications within the 60-day time limit and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, as they were based on the applicant's failure to comply with procedural rules and a lack of medical evidence supporting his claim of disability-related delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal, which summarily dismissed its appeal from a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO).

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction to order the EFO to implement a direct marketing system without a prior investigation or decision by the EFO, and alternatively dismissed the appeal as vexatious and in bad faith.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal cannot direct the EFO to exercise discretionary powers without a substantive basis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The parties attended before the Divisional Court to advise that a conditional resolution had been reached in the application for judicial review.

On consent, the court adjourned the application to the next available date, to proceed only if the resolution is not completed.

No costs were ordered for the attendance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by a coworker and subsequently terminated from his temporary assignment, claiming discrimination on various grounds.

The HRTO dismissed the application because the applicant failed to allege any nexus between a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and the alleged discriminatory conduct.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision reasonable and concluded there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the HRTO acted in accordance with its rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her motion to void an eviction order under s. 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued that because she was on a month-to-month tenancy, s. 74(12), which limits a tenant to one such motion 'during the period of the tenant's tenancy agreement', reset every month.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant's interpretation would lead to an absurd result and render the statutory limitation meaningless, as a month-to-month tenancy is a continuation of the same tenancy agreement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that granted the respondent's second motion to set aside a 2006 default judgment.

The respondent's first motion to set aside the judgment had been dismissed in 2017, a decision upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised in the second motion was res judicata.

The deputy judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second motion, which amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a final decision.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions, the parties consensually resolved the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court ordered costs payable by the plaintiffs/appellants to the various defendants/respondents in the total amount of $92,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.