Lisa Brownstone

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

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 amount of $4,000 all-inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Leiper J. dated October 23, 2025.

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

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the decisions of Hooper J. dated March 15, 2024, and C. MacLeod J. dated October 9, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the total amount of $5,200.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits following two workplace injuries.

The tribunal had allowed his appeal in part for a temporomandibular joint injury but denied benefits for headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and psycho-traumatic disability, finding they were unrelated to the workplace incidents.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, concluding that the tribunal's decisions were coherent, transparent, and firmly based on the medical evidence.

The applicant, a secondary-school teacher, sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing his reprisal application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The OLRB had dismissed the application as a collateral attack and abuse of process because the applicant had already elected to pursue the same matters through grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the OLRB did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the second application was an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a stay and the granting of the respondents' motion to strike, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded as this was public interest litigation.

The court held that the public interest nature of the case did not exempt the applicant from costs rules, especially given the voluminous record and the significant economic interests at stake.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 for the proponent and $12,500 for the City, payable by the applicant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of C.M. Smith dated December 10, 2025.

After being advised that the Court of Appeal determined the underlying order was a final order, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The applicant Town sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision finding that a proposed cemetery was in the public interest under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Tribunal had bifurcated the hearing, leaving the related site plan appeal under the Planning Act to be determined separately.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's process was not complete and that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 12, 2025.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

The court declined the responding party's request to restrict the moving parties from bringing further motions, noting that such a request must be brought by a separate motion under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure appropriate procedural protections.

The self-represented moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Edwards J. dated November 27, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $7,000, payable by the moving parties.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant's uninsured son was in an accident, and they sought benefits under her brother's spouse's policy, requiring proof of dependency.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT did not breach procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and made no error of law in applying both a 'big picture' and mathematical approach to conclude the appellant was not principally dependent on the named insured.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that barred her application for statutory accident benefits based on res judicata.

The Tribunal had previously determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The appellant argued the insurer failed to provide proper notice under s. 38(9) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and that new medical evidence warranted waiving res judicata.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the insurer had previously provided the required notice and was not obligated to issue repeated notices.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's finding that the proposed fresh evidence could have been obtained earlier and did not justify waiving res judicata.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently initiated a priority dispute with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and denied further benefits.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the insurer successfully moved to determine as a preliminary issue whether the appellant was an 'insured person', resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT's decision to proceed with the preliminary issue while the priority dispute was pending constituted an abuse of process, as it undermined the 'pay now, dispute later' statutory scheme designed to ensure continuity of benefits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, which had the effect of lifting the stay of the Board's orders.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 19, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court declined to award costs of the motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding parties.