Katherine E. Swinton

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the calculation of relief letter carrier complements under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that absences of relief letter carriers temporarily filling long-term vacancies must be included in the bar chart review process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and prior binding awards was reasonable and made labour relations sense.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife's motion for partition and sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The husband argued the parties had reached a binding agreement for him to buy out the wife's interest.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no meeting of the minds, as the husband's acceptance did not include the wife's requirement for a spousal support release.

The Court also found no error in the order for partition and sale under the Partition Act, noting no malicious or oppressive conduct by the wife.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal several orders of the lower court.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated April 6, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs submissions, no costs were awarded.

The moving party, the Corporation of the County of Renfrew, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Connell J. dated July 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint against a justice of the peace who convicted him of a red-light camera offence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council's investigation was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable.

The court noted that the applicant's complaints primarily concerned judicial decision-making, which falls outside the Council's jurisdiction, and that the transcript showed the justice of the peace treated the applicant fairly.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order on a motion to change child support, arguing errors of fact and law regarding imputed income and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the appellant's persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

However, the Court found an error of law in the trial judge's application of the 2017 Guidelines instead of the 2011 Guidelines for the period prior to November 2017.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct the child support calculations using the 2011 Guidelines, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out her complaint against three police officers.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to lay additional charges against an individual and treated her with disrespect based on her gender and ethnicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness during the screening process.

The court held that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers' exercise of discretion did not constitute misconduct and that there was no evidence of bias or differential treatment.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of decisions by the Justices of the Peace Review Council finding her guilty of judicial misconduct and recommending her removal from office.

The misconduct stemmed from an article she published criticizing the bail system and making personal attacks on Crown Attorneys.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Review Council's decisions on misconduct, disposition, and costs compensation were reasonable and did not violate her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court noted that while the motion judge made final determinations regarding two defences, the formal order was interlocutory as it simply dismissed the summary judgment motion.

Finding that the moving party failed to meet the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order, the court dismissed the motion.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated May 10, 2021.

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

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 the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, which denied his request to stay a discipline hearing pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground of prematurity.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify reviewing the interlocutory decision before the administrative proceedings had run their full course, noting that the applicant's concerns about revealing his criminal defence strategy were generic and did not constitute irreparable harm.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2021.

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