Krish Chakraborty

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The respondent school board brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal regarding the special education placement of their child.

The appellant sought 1:1 support, an issue previously decided by the Tribunal to be outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant had also filed multiple applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking the same relief.

The Tribunal found the appeal to be an abuse of process due to re-litigation and seeking remedies outside its jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant requested an order compelling the respondent school board to retrieve and produce recordings of a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing.

The recordings had been deleted after 120 days in accordance with the respondent's policy, though the appellant's counsel had previously received links to them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that discussions between counsel and the SEAB were not relevant or admissible evidence for the Tribunal proceeding, and that issues regarding the Health Care Consent Act and Human Rights Code raised by the appellant were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a school board decision confirming a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) placement of 'Regular Class with Resource Assistance' for a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The appellant sought specific programs and services, including 1:1 support.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the school board had already agreed to the requested placement, and the Tribunal's mandate under the Education Act does not extend to ordering specific programs or services.

The Tribunal also declined the respondent's request to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The Child and Family Services Review Board brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by the Toronto District School Board regarding a student's suspension and expulsion.

The motion was brought on the grounds of mootness and undue delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the school board's 23-month delay in commencing and perfecting the application was excessive, unexplained, and prejudicial to the tribunal.

Furthermore, the court held that the underlying dispute had been settled, rendering the application moot, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the case.

The appellant, Deltro Electric Ltd., appealed a decision of the Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel confirming the application of a 'Wattage Based' inspection fee to its solar farm installations.

The appellant argued that the fee was invalidly enacted due to procedural defects, that certain projects were exempt from the Electrical Safety Code, and that the use of MC4 connectors did not constitute an electrical installation requiring inspection.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the ESA had cured any initial procedural defects by the time the fees were applied, that the projects required ESA connection authorizations under the Distribution System Code, and that connecting PV panels with MC4 connectors constituted work on an electrical installation subject to inspection.