Lederman J.

The minor appellant brought an application seeking child support from her biological father.

The motion judge held that the appellant was required to have a litigation guardian under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the Family Law Rules did not adequately cover the situation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Family Law Rules do adequately cover the situation, specifically exempting a child in a child support case from the definition of a 'special party'.

The appeal was allowed, and the order requiring a litigation guardian was set aside.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision to deduct Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) from a jury award for past income loss, which reduced the award to zero, and the subsequent costs order against him.

The Divisional Court upheld the IRB deduction, finding no evidence the jury had already accounted for it.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge breached natural justice by deciding the defendants' entitlement to costs without hearing submissions from the plaintiff.

The costs issue was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned property and requiring him to vacate the premises prior to the sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the order directing the sale on the open market, finding no authority to deny a co-owner the right to market exposure.

However, the court varied the order to allow the appellant to remain in possession until closing, noting the applications judge failed to consider the hardship of immediate eviction, the impracticalities of selling a vacant house, and the appellant's willingness to maintain mortgage and expense payments.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a tribunal decision finding he was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the disability issue, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no error of law in weighing the medical evidence and prognosis.

However, on consent of the respondent, the matter was remitted to the tribunal for a second hearing to address the appellant's human rights issue.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

The appellant sought leave to appeal two orders in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal an order staying the appellant's child support application pending compliance with a financial disclosure order.

However, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal of a case conference judge's order that struck the affidavit of the parties' teenage child.

The Court found the case conference judge erred by striking the affidavit on his own initiative without hearing submissions, contrary to the Family Law Rules, and without providing adequate reasons for exercising parens patriae jurisdiction.

The affidavit was restored to the record.