Laurence A. Pattillo

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal concerning the designation of certain properties under the Ontario Heritage Act and the interpretation of provincial and municipal heritage planning provisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions of law relating to the Tribunal's consideration of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the municipal Official Plan.

Costs of the motion were fixed and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendant 2613497 Ontario Inc. moved under Rule 37.14 to set aside a Mareva injunction and discharge Certificates of Pending Litigation, arguing the original order was obtained without notice and without full and fair disclosure.

The court found that the defendant's lawyers of record had participated in case conferences and filed responding materials for the original motion, establishing that the defendant had notice.

As the motion was not made without notice, Rule 37.14 did not apply, and the court dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

In a will challenge action, the defendant estate trustees moved under Rule 21(1)(a) to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that the deceased's wills were void for violating public policy on the basis of gender discrimination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants could not resile from a prior consent order directing a trial on that issue.

On the issue of disclosure, the court limited the plaintiffs' broad requests for financial and corporate records, ordering production only of documents relevant to the will challenge between 1998 and 2003.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for costs thrown away was dismissed, but they were awarded $5,000 in costs for responding to the reconstituted motion.

The applicant credit union sought an order appointing a receiver and manager over the property and assets of the respondent hotel franchisee and its owner due to significant loan defaults.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing they had a plan to sell the property and refinance to pay off their creditors.

The court found the respondents' proposed sale agreement was not firm and lacked evidence of financial viability.

Concluding that the applicant's security was at risk and a receiver was necessary to stabilize the business, the court granted the application and appointed the receiver, though it declined to authorize an immediate assignment into bankruptcy.

In the context of a shareholder proxy fight, the applicants sought an order declaring the dissident shareholders' proxy circulars materially misleading and invalidating their proxies.

The dissident shareholders brought a motion seeking to hold the upcoming shareholders meeting virtually and to appoint an independent chair.

The court dismissed the application, finding the circulars were not materially misleading.

The court allowed the motion in part, refusing to mandate a purely virtual meeting but appointing the dissidents' proposed independent chair after finding the applicants deliberately breached a prior court order by unilaterally appointing their own chair.

The Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission directing the Chief of Police to withdraw disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The Commission found that the Chief failed to comply with the mandatory investigation and reporting requirements under section 76 of the Police Services Act before initiating a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Region's decision denying her special priority status on the subsidized housing waitlist.

The applicant, a live-in caregiver, was abused by her employer and argued she was financially dependent on him.

The Region determined that an employer-employee relationship did not constitute financial dependency under the Housing Services Act and its regulations, which are intended to assist victims of domestic abuse in familial relationships.

The Divisional Court found the Region's interpretation reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act to bring a derivative action on behalf of the respondent corporation against its landlord for wrongful termination of a commercial lease and lockout.

The applicants also sought an interim mandatory injunction restoring access to the premises.

The court found that the landlord likely breached the Commercial Tenancy Act's moratorium on evictions related to the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy.

The court granted leave for the derivative action and issued an interim order restoring the corporation's access to the premises.

Following a successful application for judicial review where the impugned regulation was declared ultra vires but Charter claims were dismissed, the applicants sought costs of $153,499.07 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for no costs or a maximum of $35,000.

The Divisional Court found the applicants' requested costs excessive given it was a one-day hearing and a large portion related to unsuccessful Charter claims.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 all inclusive.

The City of Windsor appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision awarding the respondents approximately $2.8 million in compensation for expropriated lands and injurious affection.

The City argued the LPAT breached natural justice by copying the respondents' submissions and erred in its treatment of Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) regarding environmentally sensitive lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the extent of copying did not rebut the presumption of independent decision-making.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the LPAT's factual findings regarding the impact of the PPS on the lands' development potential, the valuation of the properties, or the award of interest.

The moving parties, acting personally and as estate trustees, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sheard J. dated December 21, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding parties.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gauthier J. dated December 16, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Jarvis J. dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Kurz J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,150 to the respondent.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's final order asserting jurisdiction over the parties' fourth child under the Divorce Act.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its own jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court concluded that because the order appealed from was made under the federal Divorce Act, rather than an Ontario statute, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

Applying the Dunnington test, the court declined to dismiss the appeal and instead transferred it to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Review Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists to issue an oral caution and require a remediation program following dispensing errors.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the remedial measures were unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision was transparent, intelligible, and justified based on the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence when dispensing a 'red flag' medication.

The court also held that the caution and educational requirements were remedial in nature, not punitive, and were appropriate in the circumstances.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding vacation deductions for a police officer on a gradual return to work program.

The officer worked half-shifts and received WSIB benefits for the remainder.

When taking vacation, the employer deducted full days from his vacation bank.

The arbitrator found this did not violate the collective agreement, as the officer received his full vacation entitlement and WSIB benefits without losing any benefits.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to disclose certain information.

He had also brought a separate motion before the motion judge to correct a mistake in the same order pursuant to rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that the leave to appeal motion was premature and adjourned it until the motion to correct the order was decided and finalized.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of a Master.

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