Lise G. Favreau

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,744.26.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal three orders made by Faieta J. and J. Wilson J. in July and August 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $7,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the Assessment Review Board's decisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board breached the moving party's procedural fairness rights.

The respondent and the Board took no position on the motion, and no costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made as the responding parties did not file costs outlines.

The appellant teacher appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for intimidating and brusque behaviour towards students, and the resulting sanctions including a six-month suspension.

She argued the Committee failed to consider that the complaint was a reprisal for her own workplace harassment claims, that the Committee was biased in qualifying a former vice-principal as a participant expert, and that the College lost jurisdiction due to delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee reasonably assessed credibility, correctly applied the participant expert doctrine, and imposed reasonable sanctions for the protection of the public despite the appellant's retirement.

The appellant, a care home operator, unlawfully evicted a non-verbal adult with severe autism without following the procedures in the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's reinstatement.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing procedural unfairness and that the Board lacked statutory authority to order reinstatement under s. 31(1)(f) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that a broad interpretation of the Act's remedial provisions permitted the Board to order reinstatement to protect vulnerable tenants from unlawful eviction.

The respondent municipality brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant, a newly formed corporation seeking judicial review of a municipal resolution to sell a golf course.

The applicant conceded it had insufficient assets but argued it had a good chance of success and was engaged in public interest litigation.

The court found the applicant did not have a good chance of success on its procedural, notice, or bias arguments, and that the matter was not public interest litigation.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to post $10,000 as security for costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeals did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with standard practice, no reasons were provided.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had not paid rent since August 2019 and failed to attend the Board hearing or the motion to quash.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court quashed the appeal as an abuse of process designed solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlords.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a proposed class action against a medical clinic for infection control lapses during endoscopies.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that the appellant failed to establish an identifiable class of two or more people who suffered harm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by requiring evidence of actual harm to multiple people at the certification stage, rather than just an objective basis to identify class members.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the remaining certification criteria.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims for equalization of net family properties and spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The motions judge had found she was not a spouse due to a foreign annulment.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order dismissed an equalization claim and there was no indication the amount in dispute was $50,000 or less.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award reinstating an employee who had been dismissed for off-duty conduct.

The employee was charged with domestic assault, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably focused on actual rather than potential reputational harm and failed to properly consider the employee's prior discipline for impaired driving and alcohol consumption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable, as the arbitrator correctly applied the test for off-duty conduct and made factual findings that the conduct did not risk harming the employer's reputation and was not attributable to intoxication.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB ordered eviction based on the tenants' failure to pay their share of utilities, which the LTB found substantially interfered with the landlords' rights.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they complained to the municipality about heating issues.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by failing to consider the tenants' retaliation argument under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act and by failing to consider whether to refuse the eviction on conditions under s. 83(1).

The appeal was granted in part and remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an insurance company's decision to deny his claim against a school board for failing to recognize his learning disability.

Following a case conference, the court noted that judicial review is only available for exercises of state authority, not decisions by private corporations.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 that it is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the application pending the applicant's written submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a non-profit organization suspending him from its executive committee.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant, the court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was a private charitable organization, not a state decision-maker, and therefore its decisions were not subject to judicial review or the Charter.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated December 20, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,762.00.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application for bad faith eviction under s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board found the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period in s. 57(2).

The appellants argued the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act should apply, as they only discovered the bad faith eviction months after vacating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 57(2) of the RTA prevails over the Limitations Act and that the discoverability rule does not apply when a limitation period runs from a precise event, such as vacating a rental unit.

The employer brought three applications for judicial review of arbitration awards concerning the termination of the grievor's employment.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's declaration of redundancy was a disguised dismissal made in bad faith, and awarded the grievor net damages of $392,276, including $10,000 in moral damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the arbitrator's decisions on estoppel, the merits of the dismissal, and the calculation of damages (including the contingency factor and mitigation) to be reasonable.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a jointly owned property rather than its partition.

Following the commencement of the appeal, the appellants sold their interest in the property to the respondent for $3,900,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the issues raised were not elusive of review and did not warrant the expenditure of judicial resources.