Justice O’Brien

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claims for breach of partnership and unjust enrichment, and ordering them to pay the respondent damages for breach of contract.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court rejected as it could have been obtained before trial.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the respondent was a lender, not a partner, and that there was a juristic reason for the payments she received.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellant tenants appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application regarding the landlord's entry into the property.

The tenants alleged the landlord entered illegally and substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment by accessing a basement storage area through the backyard with a three-hour notice window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the sufficiency of the notice and the tenants' lack of exclusive use of the backyard were questions of mixed fact and law, and revealed no extricable error of law.

The moving parties sought a stay of a new Ontario government policy restricting international medical graduates from participating in the first iteration of the medical residency matching process (CaRMS) unless they attended high school in Ontario for two years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying application for judicial review.

The court held that the policy was not an exercise of a specific statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, nor was certiorari available against the Crown in these circumstances.

The inclusion of Charter arguments did not expand the court's statutory jurisdiction.

The tenant appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including an eviction order based on the landlord's requirement of the unit for his own residential occupation, and orders denying an extension of time to request a review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary denial of the time extension, no breach of procedural fairness during the hearing, and no error in the Board's application of section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant husband sought to appeal a final order from a family law trial made under the Divorce Act to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act did not extend to this final order, as the payments ordered exceeded $50,000 and the order was not made by a Family Court judge or under an Ontario statute.

The appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the clear lack of jurisdiction.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of eviction and quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order.

The tenant had previously consented to an eviction order, which he appealed and had quashed.

He then sought a review of the consent order, which was dismissed, and appealed that review order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no question of law, was devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process aimed solely at delaying eviction.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the tenant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant, a chiropractor previously disciplined for professional misconduct, sought an interim stay of an amended College bylaw that disqualified him from running in an upcoming Council election.

The College had recently amended the bylaw to extend the disqualification period for professional misconduct from three to six years, making it effective immediately.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, using the elevated 'strong likelihood of success' standard because the stay would effectively determine the election outcome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the bylaw would be found unreasonable, retrospective, or passed in bad faith on judicial review.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant had requested a review of the original order, but due to an administrative error, the LTB's review order dismissing the request was not released until months later.

Applying the Enbridge Gas factors, the court found that the tenant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by waiting for the review order, and the proposed appeal raised a question of law regarding the statutory affidavit requirements.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.