Katherine E. Swinton

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 moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Kimmel J. dated October 20, 2020.

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

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 13, 2020.

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

The plaintiffs commenced an occupiers' liability action after one plaintiff allegedly struck her head on a staircase in the defendants' building.

At a pre-trial conference, the pre-trial judge ordered the appointment of a court expert to report on liability and human factors, despite objections from the defendants and the plaintiffs' objection to paying the costs.

The pre-trial judge provided no reasons for the order.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, holding that the pre-trial judge erred by failing to provide reasons and by issuing an order that required the expert to investigate and weigh evidence, thereby usurping the role of the trier of fact.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence.

The misconduct related to his failure to report the kidnapping of an acquaintance and his unauthorized use of a police database to provide information to the victim's brother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's decisions to allow video testimony, admit a criminal trial transcript, refuse a stay for delay, and impose the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, whose veterinary licence was previously revoked for professional misconduct, brought motions before the College of Veterinarians seeking to set aside the revocation on grounds of fraud and fresh evidence.

The Chair of the Discipline Committee refused to convene a panel, finding the Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier decision.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction because there was no statutory decision to appeal, and noted that even if treated as a judicial review, the Chair's refusal was reasonable given the complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations of fraud or fresh evidence.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated September 24, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $10,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her request for reconsideration.

Her original human rights application was dismissed as abandoned after she failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding a jurisdictional issue.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov framework and found the adjudicator's reconsideration decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application regarding the landlord's handling of a bedbug infestation.

The tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence, which was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant failed to identify any error of law in the Board's interpretation of s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act or its factual findings, and rejected allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay $1,200 per month in spousal support following his retirement.

He argued the motion judge erred by providing insufficient reasons, miscalculating incomes, allowing 'double dipping' from his previously equalized pension, and ordering support indefinitely.

The Divisional Court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the exceptions to the rule against double dipping.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to add a provision allowing either party to apply to vary the order when the respondent begins drawing her pension.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $4,625.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The moving party abandoned his motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $200 to the responding party forthwith.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee terminated for sexual harassment and dishonesty during the investigation.

The arbitrator had substituted the dismissal with a 30-day suspension and a condition that any future sexual harassment would result in automatic termination, binding any future arbitrator to only determine if harassment occurred.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that termination was not the only appropriate penalty, as it was based on reasonable factual findings.

However, the Court found the penalty unreasonable because the arbitrator lacked statutory authority under the Labour Relations Act to bind future arbitrators.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine the appropriate penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.