Katherine E. Swinton

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not file any materials.

The tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed her section 82 application as abandoned and ordered her eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued procedural unfairness because the Board proceeded after she left the virtual hearing, and she disputed the rent arrears calculation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's handling of her departure from the hearing, and holding that the rent calculation was a question of fact outside the court's appellate jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

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 of $5,000 to each of the two responding party groups.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated April 24, 2022.

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

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion opposing the confirmation of a report made by an Associate Judge following a consolidated construction lien action.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, a self-represented tenant, requested an adjournment of his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board due to delays in obtaining transcripts funded by Legal Aid Ontario.

The respondent landlord did not allege any actual prejudice.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment and set a new timetable for the perfection of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.

The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to his tenancy under the s. 5(j) business exemption.

The Board found the predominant purpose of the tenancy was to operate an Airbnb short-term rental business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test and the tenant's challenge raised issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that denied her motion to remove the respondent insurer's lawyer for an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Court held that section 11 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 only permits appeals from final decisions, not interlocutory ones.

In doing so, the Court declined to follow recent Divisional Court decisions that suggested the Court had discretion to hear interlocutory appeals in exceptional circumstances, reaffirming older jurisprudence that statutory appeal rights must be strictly construed.

The applicant sought judicial review of five decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal spanning from 2008 to 2018.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first four decisions due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting both presumed and actual prejudice as the Tribunal's records had been destroyed.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's 2018 decision refusing to reconsider a 2009 decision, finding it reasonable given the unexplained seven-year delay in requesting the reconsideration.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daley J. dated April 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $6,500.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed its application for certification of a construction industry bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably refused to order a representation vote and lacked discretion to dismiss the application under s. 128.1(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant did not wish to represent the appropriate province-wide bargaining unit and that determining employee support was impossible due to the passage of time caused by the applicant's litigation strategy.

The Court held the Board reasonably interpreted s. 128.1(13) as conferring discretion to dismiss an unmeritorious application to avoid leaving it in limbo.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by breaching a condition prohibiting him from dispensing to or interacting with minors unsupervised.

The Divisional Court found the Committee interpreted the condition over-broadly and made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding three of the four alleged breaches.

The appeal was allowed in part, three findings of misconduct were set aside, and the penalty and costs orders were remitted to the Committee for redetermination.

The College's cross-appeal seeking revocation of the appellant's certificate was dismissed.

The applicant, a medical resident, was suspended and required to attend a health program.

He unsuccessfully appealed the suspension through the university's internal processes before filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant had unfairly split his case.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review post-Vavilov and upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not unreasonable to find that duplicative proceedings regarding the same underlying facts were unfair to the university.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring her to pay table amount child support, arguing the judge erred by failing to apply the undue hardship test under section 10(1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly identified the legal test but was unable to apply it due to the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of her income and means.

The court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish undue hardship.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reduced the current value assessments of several commercial properties.

MPAC argued the Board made legal errors by presuming the properties' current use was their highest and best use, by requiring annual determinations of highest and best use, and by failing to follow previous Board precedent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Court held that the presumption of current use merely reflects MPAC's statutory burden of proof, that annual assessments correctly account for changes in a property's state or condition, and that the Board is not strictly bound by its own prior decisions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting the respondent sole decision-making authority over their child.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence and finding a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that hearsay evidence is admissible on a motion to change under the Family Law Rules, and that compelling evidence, including the child's escalating behavioural crisis and the parents' inability to communicate, supported the finding of a material change.