Laurence A. Pattillo

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by a Master.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

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.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Henderson J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs were requested, no costs were ordered.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

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, an ODSP recipient, appealed an interim ruling of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding its jurisdiction to hear complaints about overpayment calculations from 2010 and prior years.

The Director raised a threshold issue of prematurity, arguing that appeals to the Divisional Court under s. 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act are only permitted from final decisions.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the administrative law doctrine of prematurity applies to prevent fragmentation and delay, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Kimmel J. dated October 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The appellant municipality appealed an interlocutory order that set aside a consent dismissal of an action and consolidated it with another ongoing action.

The parties had previously agreed to settle the action, but a dispute arose over the specific wording of the release regarding the respondent's ability to call evidence in the ongoing action.

The motion judge found the settlement was contingent on the respondent agreeing to the release terms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error as the essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon and the proposed release accurately reflected those terms.

The settlement was enforced and the consent dismissal reinstated.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 13, 2020.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 9, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Myers J. dated November 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $7,500.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced an occupiers' liability action after one plaintiff allegedly struck her head on a staircase in the defendants' building.

At a pre-trial conference, the pre-trial judge ordered the appointment of a court expert to report on liability and human factors, despite objections from the defendants and the plaintiffs' objection to paying the costs.

The pre-trial judge provided no reasons for the order.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, holding that the pre-trial judge erred by failing to provide reasons and by issuing an order that required the expert to investigate and weigh evidence, thereby usurping the role of the trier of fact.

The tenant appellants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy.

They argued the Board erred in law and denied them procedural fairness.

At the hearing, the appellants' counsel advised that the transcripts of the Board hearings had just been received but were not yet filed with the court.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, finding that the transcripts were necessary to fairly determine the procedural fairness issues raised.

A case conference was directed to fix an expedited return date.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the Tribunal erred by requiring a condition in its grant of a Public Safety Maintenance Easement that permitted physical encumbrances or encroachments authorized by an approval authority.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a custody and access order.

The appellant failed to appear at the case management conference and the motion hearings, and sent an email stating she was abandoning her appeal but failed to file a Notice of Abandonment.

The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting it would have also been dismissed for delay due to the appellant's failure to order transcripts.

Costs of the motion and appeal were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay $1,200 per month in spousal support following his retirement.

He argued the motion judge erred by providing insufficient reasons, miscalculating incomes, allowing 'double dipping' from his previously equalized pension, and ordering support indefinitely.

The Divisional Court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the exceptions to the rule against double dipping.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to add a provision allowing either party to apply to vary the order when the respondent begins drawing her pension.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that denied the tenant's motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to attend the Board hearing and alleged improper service as the ground for appeal.

The Divisional Court found no merit to the tenant's allegations of improper service, noting the Board's finding that notice was properly served.

The court concluded the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.