Stay of proceedings

The defendants appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a Supreme Court of Canada costs order.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff was only required to repay $12,180, while the defendants argued the order required repayment of $200,000.

Rather than deciding the appeal, the Divisional Court ordered the parties to jointly apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification of its own order, finding this to be the most efficient and proportionate method of resolving the ambiguity.

The moving party employer sought to quash the responding party employee's appeal of an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

The employer argued the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The employee and an intervener argued the arbitration clause was void for contracting out of the Employment Standards Act, meaning the initial stay decision was made without jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the appeal was not completely devoid of merit and raised important questions of law regarding the intersection of the Arbitration Act and the Employment Standards Act.

The self-represented appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that preserved her tenancy but denied her request to be re-admitted to the rental unit pending an urgent hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting that the court does not ordinarily hear appeals from interlocutory LTB orders and the appeal would be moot before it could be heard.

After reviewing the appellant's submissions, the court stayed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01, finding it premature and of no practical effect.

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 sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for a stay of proceedings.

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

The self-represented applicant, who has a psychiatric disability, sought leave to appeal multiple interlocutory orders, including an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian and an order refusing to appoint amicus curiae.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions to provide copies of the impugned decisions and to follow procedural rules.

The Divisional Court issued directions and notices under Rule 2.1.01, requiring the applicant to show cause why her motions for leave to appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicants, two Indigenous representative groups, brought motions for a stay of a Minister's Directive and Designations that authorized three children's aid societies to provide child and family services in Thunder Bay.

The applicants argued the Directive interfered with their inherent right to self-government and was issued without proper consultation or statutory compliance.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motions for a stay were dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of a Board order revoking its liquor licence pending an appeal.

The Board had revoked the licence after finding the applicant allowed drug sales and drunkenness on the premises.

The applicant argued it should have been allowed to introduce fresh evidence at the Board hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to meet the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, particularly failing to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to set aside service outside Ontario and permanently stay the action on the basis that Ontario was not the forum conveniens.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for a Master's decision on forum conveniens is correctness, as it is vital to the final disposition of the lawsuit.

Applying this standard, the Court upheld the Master's finding that Ontario was the appropriate forum, noting the plaintiff's central location and the lack of evidence showing another jurisdiction was clearly more appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, members of a housing co-operative, appealed a judgment terminating their occupancy rights and ordering payment of post-bankruptcy arrears.

They argued the judgment violated the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by identifying pre-bankruptcy arrears, and that they were denied procedural fairness when the application judge refused an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment did not violate the BIA as it explicitly stayed collection of pre-bankruptcy arrears, and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment given the mounting arrears and prejudice to the co-operative.

The applicant physician sought to prevent an investigation into his competence ordered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and to force the Quality Assurance Committee to continue an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the College's statutory duty to protect the public.

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the provincial government was negligent in failing to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions regarding the threshold test for establishing a duty of care for public authorities and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

A stay of the order was also granted pending the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion to stay ongoing discipline proceedings before a hearing panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada pending a proposed application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the established principle that the court will not intervene in or fragment ongoing administrative proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.

The court noted the applicant must exhaust her remedies, including an appeal to the Law Society's appeal panel, before seeking judicial review.

The moving party regulatory college sought to lift a stay of a Discipline Committee decision that revoked the responding party doctor's licence, or alternatively to dismiss his appeal.

The stay had been previously maintained on strict conditions, including cooperating with investigators and not selling drugs at a profit.

The court found that the doctor breached these conditions by making false statements to investigators, concealing his treatment of cancer patients, and failing to maintain proper charts.

Concluding that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest, the court lifted the stay but declined to dismiss the appeal, allowing the doctor to argue it on the merits.

The employer, Great Blue Heron Gaming Company, and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation brought motions to stay a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pending judicial review.

The OLRB had determined that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applied to the employer's casino operations on the reserve, rejecting the First Nation's argument that its own Labour Code applied pursuant to aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motions, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing collective bargaining to proceed for the 800 employees who had voted for union representation over a year prior.

The applicant brought an application to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to grant intervenor status was incorrect, as the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would distort the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The defendant argued that the motion judge failed to apply the correct principles regarding forum selection clauses as recently set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge had correctly applied the principles, noting that the burden on the plaintiff to show strong cause only arises once the jurisdiction clause is found to be binding, which the motion judge did not find.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant Institute sought to lift a stay of a disciplinary order against the respondent chartered accountant, which had been granted pending judicial review.

The stay was originally granted on the condition that the judicial review be expedited.

Due to egregious and inexcusable delays by the respondent's counsel, the hearing dates were lost.

The court found that the balance of convenience had shifted in favour of the applicant due to the risk to the public interest, given the respondent's convictions for offences involving dishonesty.

The motion to lift the stay was granted.

The minority shareholder applicant brought an oppression application under the Business Corporations Act after being dismissed from the respondent corporation.

The shareholders' agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause and a specific mechanism for valuing and redeeming the shares of a departing employee.

The motions judge allowed the applicant's motion to have the dispute heard in court rather than by arbitration, relying on the Weber principle to avoid a potential deprivation of ultimate remedy.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the Weber principle does not generally apply to voluntary private arbitration agreements and that the parties must be held to their freely chosen dispute resolution mechanism.

The applicant ballet company sought a stay of an interim arbitral award that suspended the non-renewal of the respondent dancer's employment contract and ordered her reinstatement pending a final decision.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement under the Labour Relations Act.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious question to be tried regarding jurisdiction, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, as a further hiatus in dancing would likely end her career, whereas the applicant would not suffer a fatal blow if she were reinstated.