Kristin Muszynski

The appellant retained the respondent solicitor for a residential property purchase and later sought to assess his final account.

The assessment officer found the requisition was out of time under the Solicitors Act, and a motion judge subsequently dismissed the appellant's motion to permit the assessment to proceed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the account had been paid and the appellant failed to demonstrate any special circumstances under section 11 of the Solicitors Act to justify an assessment.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Gibson J. dated December 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party, acting self-represented, brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 10, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,000.

The applicant, a legal assistant, sought judicial review of a decision denying her application for appointment as a non-lawyer notary public.

The Manager of Legal Appointments denied the application on the basis that the appointment was not necessary for the law firm's regular business, as the supervising lawyer was already a notary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was procedurally fair because the applicant had notice of the criteria.

The court also held that the decision was reasonable, as it aligned with the long-standing practice of limiting appointments to situations of strict necessity rather than mere expansion of services.

The appellant, a former chairman of a publicly traded cannabis company, appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding he breached the prohibition against tipping material non-public information under s. 76(2) of the Securities Act and imposing sanctions.

The appellant had shared draft transaction documents with a personal friend and business colleague.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the appellant bore the onus of proving the disclosure was in the 'necessary course of business' (NCOB), that the NCOB test is purely objective, and that the disclosure was not necessary.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that an objective NCOB test unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, finding any infringement was justified under s. 1.

The appeal against the merits and sanctions decisions was dismissed.

This decision concerns the prosecution of Aysar Younes for two counts each of impaired driving/over 80 causing death and dangerous driving causing death, arising from a fatal collision on Highway 2 in Trenton, Ontario.

The court addresses the admissibility and reliability of blood alcohol evidence, the continuity of evidence, and the legal standards for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court finds the evidence of blood alcohol concentration and impairment reliable and sufficient, and concludes that Younes' conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, resulting in conviction on all counts.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert evidence from Cara Shepard, a forensic toxicologist, in the trial of Aysar Younes for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that while Ms. Shepard’s evidence regarding cocaine use was necessary and within her expertise, it lacked probative value on the issue of impairment or crash phase at the time of the collision and was therefore inadmissible for that purpose.

However, the court allowed the evidence for the limited purpose of establishing continuity of the blood sample.

The appellant appealed an order granting a writ of possession to a non-profit housing co-operative.

The appellant, who was not a member of the co-operative, had been surreptitiously subletting a unit from a member who subsequently withdrew from the co-operative.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to member units of a co-operative and that the appellant had no right to occupy the unit.

The court upheld the application judge's discretionary decisions regarding the writ of possession and the time to vacate.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The issue of costs was left to the appeal panel.

The moving parties, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Canada, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with the issue of costs left to the appeal panel.

Following a fire in a residential complex, the landlords refused to allow tenants to return to their units despite the City of Sarnia clearing the units for occupancy.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the landlords had illegally locked out the tenants, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment, and engaged in harassment.

The Board awarded damages and imposed administrative fines totalling $525,000.

The landlords appealed and sought judicial review on several grounds, including procedural fairness, damages awards, and the quantum of the fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and applications for judicial review, except for the issue of naming the principal of the corporate landlord as a 'landlord' personally, which was remitted to the Board due to a lack of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against her union.

The applicant alleged the union acted discriminatorily and arbitrarily by refusing to file an individual grievance regarding her bumping rights, opting instead for a policy grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and holding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by dismissing the complaint without an oral hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of racial discrimination against a retail store employee, as well as the Tribunal's subsequent reconsideration decision.

The applicant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair because the Tribunal limited his cross-examination on will-say statements and restricted evidence regarding the adequacy of the store's internal investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings and narrowing of the issues were procedurally fair.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's merits decision was reasonable, as it was transparent, intelligible, and justified by the evidentiary record.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated September 25, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Mills J. dated September 23, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

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 appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a lower court decision, to admit fresh evidence, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving party's motion for leave to appeal a decision dated June 27, 2024.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.00.

The accused, Aysar Younes, faced charges of operating a conveyance causing death while impaired/over 80 and dangerous operation causing death.

This ruling addressed two Crown applications: to declare a statement made by Younes to police voluntary, and to determine the admissibility of evidence from a friend regarding the normality of cocaine use in their social group.

The court found the statement voluntary for cross-examination purposes, as conceded by the defence.

However, the court dismissed the Crown's application to admit evidence about the normality of cocaine use, finding its probative value low and the risk of moral prejudice high, particularly in a jury trial.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained by police following a fatal motor vehicle collision, alleging breaches of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the warrantless seizure of airbag control module (ACM) data was lawful under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, as police had reasonable grounds to believe it would provide evidence of an offence.

Similarly, the production order for medical records and search warrant for blood vials were deemed valid, as reasonable grounds existed to suspect impairment.

However, the search warrant for the applicant's cell phone was found to be overly broad and the subsequent search unlawful, infringing s. 8.

Applying the Grant factors, the court admitted the ACM data, medical records, and toxicology reports, but excluded all evidence obtained from the cell phone search due to the seriousness and impact of the breach.