Kathleen E. Cullin

The court considered written submissions on costs following the granting of summary judgment in favour of the defendant, The Corporation of the City of Timmins.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the self-represented plaintiff argued for no costs or, alternatively, costs in his favour for a disclosure motion.

The court reviewed the relevant legal framework, including the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, and found that the defendant was entitled to substantial indemnity costs throughout, given the plaintiff’s prior similar litigation and the defendant’s early offer to settle.

The court adjusted the quantum of costs to reflect partial success on a disclosure motion and awarded a total of $80,631.57 to the defendant.

The decision addresses motions for a representative order and for an interlocutory injunction in the context of the de-rostering of patients from a community health centre in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The plaintiff, Michael Da Prat, sought to represent both subscribers and non-subscribers of the Group Health Centre, challenging the de-rostering as a breach of contract, a violation of the Human Rights Code, and as oppressive conduct under corporate statutes.

The court granted a representative order only for the breach of contract claim on behalf of subscribers, denied it for other claims and for non-subscribers, and refused the interlocutory injunction, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

This endorsement addresses a case conference during an ongoing trial, where both parties sought to admit further evidence.

The court set out a process for the parties to attempt consent on the admission of new documents, established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, and clarified that all communications should be between counsel of record or self-represented parties.

The court also outlined procedures for cross-examination on affidavits and provided for further case management as needed.

The applicant appealed an order granting the interim partition and sale of a jointly owned home prior to trial.

The parties, former spouses, separated in 2016, with the applicant remaining in the home.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's application of the principles governing partition and sale, noting the applicant failed to establish prejudice and the respondent had been deprived of her equity for over seven years.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought a bail review under s.520 of the Criminal Code, challenging a prior detention order.

The court found new evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances, allowing the review.

However, the applicant's updated bail plan, particularly concerning unstable housing and proximity to a prohibited person, failed to satisfy the secondary grounds for release, leading to the continued detention of the applicant for public safety.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Provincial Police concluding that the misconduct of two officers, one of whom struck and killed the applicant's spouse with a police vehicle, was 'not of a serious nature'.

The Divisional Court held that the OPP was required to provide written reasons justifying its conclusion, given the severity of the incident and the statutory framework.

The court found the OPP's decision unreasonable because it merely listed generic factors without explaining how they applied to the specific officers.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.

This endorsement arises from a case management conference concerning the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The court addressed disagreements between the parties regarding the timetable and the filing of evidence, particularly concerning examinations of non-party witnesses under Rule 39.03.

The judge clarified the purpose of the pre-motion conference and ruled on the admissibility of additional evidence post-conference and after Rule 39.03 examinations, adopting the reasoning from Martin v. Kiewit Alarie A Partnership.

A detailed timetable for the motion was ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had continuous impairments, they were not substantial and did not substantially restrict his activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court applied the correctness standard of review and found no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claims for a catastrophic impairment designation, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law in the LAT Vice-Chair's application of the 'but for' causation test or her factual findings that the appellant's ongoing impairments were not accident-related.

The court also held that the LAT correctly dismissed the claims for treatment plans and attendant care benefits, as the appellant had no accident-related impairments during the relevant periods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's 2,250-page affidavit, filed in response to a summary judgment motion, arguing it contained inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant evidence.

The court granted the defendants' request, striking the affidavit in its entirety with leave for the plaintiff to file a fresh affidavit.

The decision emphasized that the affidavit was prejudicial to a fair hearing and an abuse of process due to its voluminous and inadmissible content, providing specific directions on evidentiary requirements for summary judgment motions.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to pay $193,596.50 to the respondent for her share of a joint bank account following their separation.

The appellant argued there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the quantum owed and that he was entitled to a trial under Rule 16(7) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in relying on the appellant's failure to respond to a Request to Admit, which deemed the quantum admitted.

The court held the motion judge properly applied the summary judgment framework and made no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a grocery store for requiring her to wear a mask.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence substantiating a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's request for further medical evidence was reasonable and that the Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness, as the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide the required information.

The tenants appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for non-payment of rent and awarded partial rent abatements for maintenance issues.

The tenants argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, failed to find serious breaches by the landlords that would preclude eviction, and exhibited bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable, the tenants were not entitled to self-abate rent, and the minor errors alleged did not warrant interference.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of parenting terms in final consent orders and imposing sanctions that suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and precluded the father from bringing further proceedings.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of contempt, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated non-compliance.

However, the court set aside the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The appellant father appealed a finding of contempt and the resulting sanctions for breaching parenting terms in a final consent order.

The motion judge had suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and barred the father from bringing further proceedings until he complied.

The Divisional Court upheld the contempt finding, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated breaches.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a prior order striking his pleadings and to release his share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the respondent's motion.

The court, applying principles that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy, found that the respondent's partial compliance with undertakings and the importance of maintaining the adversarial process in family law warranted setting aside the order, albeit with conditions for full disclosure.

The court also ordered the release of a portion of the respondent's funds held in trust, determining there were sufficient remaining funds to cover potential equalization payments.

The matter was adjourned for further proceedings and compliance review.

The plaintiffs sold their business, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., to the defendants.

Disputes arose regarding options to purchase the lands on which the business operated, post-closing adjustments, and the conduct of the parties' shared accountant.

The court found that the accountant breached professional and contractual duties by acting in a conflict of interest.

The court also held that the defendants' counterclaim for post-closing adjustments was not time-barred.

Specific performance was granted to the defendants for the optioned lands, subject to certain severance conditions.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding they misused the process of terminating a tenancy for personal use and awarding compensation to the tenants.

The landlords argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive notice of the hearing due to an email security issue while travelling abroad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB's conclusion that notice was received was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlords' own version of events confirmed they improperly sought to oust the tenants to sell the property.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying her claims for various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the insurer failed to properly manage her request for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator correctly concluded that the issue of catastrophic impairment was not properly before the tribunal because the appellant had not initiated a claim or provided an evidentiary basis for it.

The court found no errors of law in the adjudicator's decision.