Laurence A. Pattillo

The moving party corporation sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to set aside or stay an interim payment order requiring it to advance legal fees to a former officer facing criminal charges in the United States.

The moving party argued that a recent jury verdict of guilty in the US constituted sufficient evidence of mala fides to overcome the indemnification obligation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as the US verdict had not yet been entered as a final judgment and the risk of non-repayment did not constitute irreparable harm.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because his name was misspelled on the application.

The Divisional Court held that the misnomer was a procedural matter, not a question of law, and that the appeal was devoid of merit.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay, and directed the sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The applicant partnership sought a declaration that two Toronto Maple Leafs season tickets, registered in the name of a deceased partner, were held in trust for the partnership.

The court found that the tickets were originally offered to the partners and placed in the deceased's name because they could not be registered to the partnership.

The partnership paid for the tickets and claimed them as a business expense.

The court concluded that the evidence established the essential elements of both a bare trust and a purchase money resulting trust, and ordered the estate to transfer the tickets to the partnership.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 for breach of contract.

The central issue was the interpretation of a termination provision in their memorandum of understanding, which required one year's notice.

The appellants argued the notice was conditional on an agreement with the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that the one-year notice requirement was not a condition precedent dependent on a TDSB agreement, but rather a commercially reasonable term.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to set aside a worldwide Mareva injunction.

The injunction was originally granted ex parte in an action alleging the defendant perpetrated a massive fraud while CEO of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Divisional Court denied leave on the issues of whether there was a prima facie case of fraud and risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court granted leave to appeal on three questions: whether an Ontario court can grant a Mareva injunction when the defendant has no assets in the jurisdiction, whether the undertaking as to damages provided by a non-party was sufficient, and whether that undertaking adequately protected the defendant's costs.

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal from two interlocutory orders that dismissed her motion regarding mandatory mediation and stayed her action pending payment of outstanding costs and mediator fees.

The moving party had previously failed to attend mediation and had multiple unpaid cost awards against her.

The Divisional Court denied her request for an adjournment and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding she failed to establish either a conflicting decision or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders under Rule 62.02(4).

The tenant brought an urgent motion for a stay of enforcement of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

His previous appeal of the Board's order had been quashed for being devoid of merit.

The tenant sought a stay pending a motion to vary the order quashing his appeal.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found the tenant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured him, noting he had not paid rent since September 2015.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs awarded to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made at a Small Claims Court settlement conference in a medical negligence action.

The order required the applicant to produce expert reports and directed third-party hospitals and doctors to produce the applicant's medical records.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to order the production of expert reports under the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

However, the court concluded that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to order third-party production of documents.

The application was allowed in part, and the third-party production order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision to refuse to process its application for a new liquor licence.

The Registrar had refused to process the application, arguing the applicant was substantially related to the existing licensee and was attempting to evade public interest protections, and insisted the applicant file a transfer application instead.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that under the Liquor Licence Act, the Registrar has no statutory authority to refuse an application outright.

Instead, the Registrar must issue a proposal to refuse the application, which triggers the applicant's right to a hearing.

The matter was remitted to the Registrar to process in accordance with the Act.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing a motion to set aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the action as abandoned.

The underlying claim arose from a motor vehicle accident, but the appellant failed to serve the statement of claim or take reasonable steps to locate the respondent before the action was administratively dismissed.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the Master's factual findings and held that the Master correctly applied the Reid factors, noting the lack of explanation for the delay, failure to move promptly, and prejudice to the respondent due to the expired limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ministry appealed a costs order awarding the plaintiffs $150,000 in partial indemnity costs following a motion to join the Ministry as a party and amend the statement of claim.

The Ministry argued the costs were excessive for a pleadings motion and that the judge failed to properly apply Rule 57.01.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion was treated as a 'mini-trial' by the Ministry, the issues were of significant importance, and the judge properly considered the relevant factors in exercising his discretion to fix costs.

The appellant appealed a decision confirming a Master's Report which found that a contract for the supply of light fixtures was between the respondent distributor and the respondent electrical contractor, rather than the appellant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Master's factual findings regarding the identity of the contracting parties.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision refusing to add a proposed defendant to their counterclaim due to an expired limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the date of performance or when the oppression claim arose could not be determined from the pleadings.

The court held it was an error in principle to refuse leave to amend at this stage, without prejudice to the respondents' right to plead the Limitations Act.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal claim.

The motion judge had found that the appellant abandoned his employment by failing to return to work, failing to provide medical documentation for short-term disability, and relocating to another province.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant abandoned his position after 8.5 months of absences and warnings.

The court also upheld the finding that the employer had no independent duty to accommodate beyond its short-term disability plan.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a discipline panel's decision regarding a nurse who was found guilty of professional misconduct following criminal convictions for child pornography offences.

The nurse had resigned prior to the hearing, and the panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to revoke his certificate of registration because it was 'non-existent'.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the panel's interpretation unreasonable and contrary to the broad, purposive intent of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Court held that the College retains continuing jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including revocation, on former members to protect the public.

The Court set aside the panel's penalty and ordered the revocation of the respondent's certificate.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a $1 million life insurance policy was part of the deceased's estate and available for dependant support claims under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The deceased had been ordered on consent to maintain his former spouse as the irrevocable beneficiary of the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deceased still 'owned' the policy under s. 72(1)(f) of the SLRA despite the irrevocable designation.

The Court further held that the former spouse did not have 'creditor rights' under s. 72(7) because the designation did not create a security interest, and she was not entitled to damages for breach of contract.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP, which reduced his stale-dated billing claims from $572,462.41 to $203,864.07 following a sample audit.

The applicant argued the General Manager lacked jurisdiction to reduce the claims under the amended Health Insurance Act, acted unreasonably, and breached procedural fairness by refusing a meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the General Manager had discretion under s. 18(3) to set conditions for reviewing late claims, the sample audit methodology was reasonable, and procedural fairness was met without an in-person meeting.

The defendant municipalities sought leave to appeal a Case Management Judge's order requiring them to cease and desist an opt-out campaign directed at class members, which the judge found created undue influence.

The plaintiff class representatives sought leave to cross-appeal, arguing the judge should have ordered the removal of existing communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Case Management Judge's findings or the discretionary remedy granted.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to repay a $20,000 loan, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that part payments made by the appellant's company extended the limitation period for both the company and the appellant.

Furthermore, the court held that an email sent by the appellant acknowledging the debt and containing his name constituted a signed acknowledgement in writing under section 13 of the Limitations Act, 2002, which also extended the limitation period.

The appellant mother appealed orders determining that Ontario had jurisdiction to deal with custody and access of the parties' child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The family had moved to Hawaii in 2010, but the child returned to Ontario for the summer.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred in concluding the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that the child would suffer serious harm if returned to Hawaii.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside, as Ontario lacked jurisdiction.