Katherine E. Swinton

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its poultry service workers were not exempt from the Employment Standards Act under the farm worker exemption.

The Board had concluded that because the employees provided services to multiple farms, they were not employed 'on a farm' within the meaning of the exemption.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation was consistent with its past decisions and struck a reasonable balance between the purposes of the Act and the exemption.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Ferguson J. dated February 2, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated May 21, 2021.

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

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs of $34,377.28 on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a settlement offer.

The appellant argued he was a public interest litigant and that no costs should be ordered.

The Divisional Court found the appellant did not demonstrate he was a public interest litigant and held that costs should follow the event.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Rule 49 did not apply, and instead awarded the respondent costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding trustee compensation on a passing of accounts, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent (former trustee) sought full indemnity costs of $134,394.86, while the appellants argued for partial indemnity costs payable by the trust and sought their own costs from the trust.

The Divisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to full indemnity costs because he incurred them in his capacity as trustee.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $90,000 all-inclusive, ordering a blended costs award where the appellants pay 60 percent and the trust pays 40 percent.

The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to adopt a transitional regulation exempting a proposed waste management facility from the natural heritage policies of the 2019 Growth Plan.

The applicant also sought to quash a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that struck its appeal issues based on this regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister exceeded his authority under s. 19(1)(d) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, as the regulation did not address a genuine transitional matter but rather granted an exemption to key policies adopted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The regulation was declared ultra vires, and the LPAT decision was set aside and remitted.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by applying the 'Clergy principle' to allow the respondent's planning applications to be assessed under the policy regime in place when they were originally filed in 1990.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Clergy principle is a procedural policy choice within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, not a legal principle subject to appeal on a question of law.

The Court also found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding parties in the agreed amount of $10,000.

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

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

The moving party, BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by a single judge of the Divisional Court who had determined an appeal from the Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, noting that under the Courts of Justice Act, leave to appeal such an order must be sought from the Court of Appeal.

No costs were awarded as neither party raised the jurisdictional issue.

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 to the responding parties fixed at $1,800.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Region's decision denying her special priority status on the subsidized housing waitlist.

The applicant, a live-in caregiver, was abused by her employer and argued she was financially dependent on him.

The Region determined that an employer-employee relationship did not constitute financial dependency under the Housing Services Act and its regulations, which are intended to assist victims of domestic abuse in familial relationships.

The Divisional Court found the Region's interpretation reasonable and dismissed the application.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties sought costs of $31,050, but the court awarded a reduced amount of $3,000 because much of their material was not responsive to the issues.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2021.

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

The appellant, a defendant in a defamation action, appealed a motions judge's decision refusing her leave to amend her statement of defence.

The motions judge had found the proposed amendments were properly pleaded and caused no prejudice, but concluded the motion itself was an abuse of process because the appellant had previously sought broad disclosure without particularizing her defence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 26 is broadly permissive and the motion to amend was not an abuse of process, as the amendments were integral to the defence and caused no prejudice.

The court permitted the amendments but upheld the motions judge's adverse costs award against the appellant for her prior litigation conduct.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision requiring it to fund the respondent's catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessment under s. 25(1)5 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued it was only required to pay for an assessment completed before the insured submitted their application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the preparation of an application does not cease once the formal document is submitted, and the insurer must fund any assessment necessary for determining whether the impairment is catastrophic.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court issued an amended endorsement to reflect that the moving parties were represented by counsel, as a Notice of Change of Lawyer had been filed but not uploaded to Caselines.

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

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.