Katherine E. Swinton

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 21, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The moving party, Facca Incorporated, brought a motion for leave to appeal a November 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the third party, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, payable by the moving party.

No costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff as no costs submissions were received.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,195.

The applicant, a minor hockey coach, sought judicial review of a Children's Aid Society (CAS) decision verifying that six children were at risk of emotional harm due to his coaching conduct.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the CAS decision.

The Court found that the CAS breached procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with adequate notice of the specific allegations and the legal standard being applied.

Furthermore, the CAS's investigation was inadequate and its decision was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the legislative criteria for emotional harm and lacked a logical, reasoned basis for its conclusions regarding each child.

The appellants, beneficiaries of a family trust, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts of the respondent trustee.

They argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, erred in failing to find a conflict of interest when the trustee hired lawyers from his own firm, and awarded unreasonable compensation.

They also sought leave to appeal the full indemnity costs awarded to the trustee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate in context, there was no palpable and overriding error in finding no conflict of interest, the compensation reduction was reasonable, and the costs award properly reflected the public policy of indemnifying trustees for reasonable administration expenses.

The respondent (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 applicants (responding parties) in the agreed amount of $5,000.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his child to the United States.

The parties separated while living in Massachusetts, and the mother moved to Ontario while pregnant.

The child was born in Ontario and remained there.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence was Ontario, as the child had never been to the United States.

The court also upheld the finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,891.66.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Review Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists to issue an oral caution and require a remediation program following dispensing errors.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the remedial measures were unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision was transparent, intelligible, and justified based on the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence when dispensing a 'red flag' medication.

The court also held that the caution and educational requirements were remedial in nature, not punitive, and were appropriate in the circumstances.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three orders of the motion judge regarding venue, surveillance, and costs.

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

The tenants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a consent eviction order and a refusal to extend the time to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's orders and noting that the appeal was filed out of time.

The Court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of process intended solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and allow the tenants to remain in the property without paying rent.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions dismissing his human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO found that the substance of his allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration, even though the union declined to advance Code-based arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's application of s. 45.1 was reasonable, as the arbitrator's factual findings precluded any finding of Code violations.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness denial and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to refer his complaint against the Ottawa Police Service for investigation.

The applicant alleged a state-sanctioned conspiracy involving individuals in red cars and claimed the police failed to investigate and were complicit.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under the Police Services Act, concluding it was not in the public interest to investigate given the broad allegations and passage of time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and transparent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision revoking his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance.

The housing provider terminated the subsidy after discovering the applicant was subject to bail conditions requiring him to reside with a surety and prohibiting contact with his children, meaning he had been absent from the unit for over 60 days and failed to report a change in household composition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the administrative decision was reasonable, properly interpreted the legislative scheme, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.

The appellant appealed an urgent motion order requiring him to return his three children to their primary residence with the respondent and to pay $3,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found the appeal on the merits to be moot, as the appellant had already complied with the order to return the children.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied, as the motion judge's award of full indemnity costs was reasonable and within her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed an interim ruling of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding its jurisdiction to hear complaints about overpayment calculations from 2010 and prior years.

The Director raised a threshold issue of prematurity, arguing that appeals to the Divisional Court under s. 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act are only permitted from final decisions.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the administrative law doctrine of prematurity applies to prevent fragmentation and delay, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 9, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,500.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.