E. Stewart

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the leave motion to be determined by the hearing panel.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.

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

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

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.

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

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from an arbitration award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act arising from the breakdown of a purchase agreement for a new build home.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court panel directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the Arbitration Act, 1991 requires leave to appeal or limits the appeal to issues of law.

The appellant appealed an arbitration and cost award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court raised preliminary questions regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether leave to appeal was required under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court adjourned the hearing and directed the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional issues.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

Costs were fixed at $2,500 payable forthwith to the responding construction company.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 22, 2022.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Bonsawin J. dated November 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, appealed a decision dismissing an application for a declaration that the respondent improperly took approximately $100,000 from the deceased.

At the hearing, the Divisional Court raised the issue of monetary jurisdiction, noting the amount in dispute exceeded its jurisdiction and did not fall under the Estates Act.

The self-represented appellant requested the appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal.

Finding an arguable case on the merits and no prejudice to the non-attending respondent, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her ongoing income replacement and psychological benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued she was denied procedural fairness because the insurer's psychological expert did not produce raw test data until mid-hearing, and that the LAT erred in finding the insurer made 'best efforts' to produce the file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the data during a five-week adjournment and cross-examine the expert.

The Court also found the LAT applied the correct legal test for 'best efforts'.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that upheld a finding that the respondent was catastrophically impaired and entitled to non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to identify any extricable error of law in the adjudicator's assessment of the medical evidence and whole person impairment ratings.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear the reconsideration request as a single member of the original two-member panel, noting that the Tribunal's rules permit such a procedure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against officers of the London Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the officers discriminated against him based on his gender during an intimate partner dispute.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act, concluding that the underlying issues regarding access to the matrimonial home and corporate property were better suited for family, civil, or landlord and tenant courts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and adequately explained.

The appellants appealed a costs order from a summary judgment motion where they were granted an injunction regarding a wood stove and $1,500 in damages for nuisance, but no costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the respondents had offered to consent to the injunction early on and the appellants had claimed $60,000 in damages but only recovered $1,500.

The court found no error in principle in the motion judge's decision that each party bear their own costs.

The defendant appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued that the dispute resolution clause in the construction contract extinguished the plaintiff's right to bring a court action because the plaintiff failed to deliver a Notice of Dispute within 15 days of the defendant's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial as to whether the defendant satisfied the condition precedent of 'consultation and co-operation' before rendering its decision, which would trigger the 15-day deadline.

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 party sought leave to appeal the orders of the motions judge granting and extending interim injunctive relief in favour of the plaintiff.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issues of whether the motions judge erred in granting the initial injunction and extending it despite a pending anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs of the leave motion were awarded to the moving party.

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.