Lynne C. Leitch

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 20, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $8,213.01.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of R.B. Reid J. dated November 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party respondent sought leave to appeal an order of Myers J. dated October 31, 2023.

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

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding party/applicants and $5,000 payable to the respondents Hsin Hua Hsieh and Ying Ting Lin, for a total costs award of $10,000.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding them bound by collective agreements as successor employers under s. 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the principals engaged in a scheme to establish a non-union company and that a sale of the business occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding the principal's role and the lack of prejudice from delay were supported by the record.

The applicant, J.P., sought a stay of criminal proceedings due to an alleged infringement of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

This was a retrial after a previous stay was overturned on appeal.

The court found that the constitutional clock reset to zero upon remittance from the Court of Appeal, and the 30-month Jordan ceiling applied.

Despite the net delay being below the ceiling, the court conducted a contextual analysis, finding that the Crown's inconsistent positions and failures regarding disclosure of the applicant's cellphone caused significant and unreasonable delay, necessitating the defence to bring additional applications.

The court concluded that the defence took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, while the Crown did not, leading to the delay markedly exceeding what was reasonable.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of a retainer agreement and an order for the defendants to pay Class Counsel's legal fees and disbursements.

This motion was brought after the plaintiff withdrew a certification motion in a class action alleging an electrical defect in Class Vehicles.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' subsequent voluntary offer of an enhanced warranty to Canadian customers, mirroring a U.S. settlement, constituted "success" attributable to the litigation, thereby entitling Class Counsel to fees.

The defendants contended that the Canadian warranty enhancement was independent of the Canadian litigation, consistent with their corporate practice of coordinating benefits with U.S. settlements regardless of parallel Canadian actions.

The court found no evidence that the benefits stemmed from the Canadian action and concluded that the class proceeding had not been "successful" as defined by the Class Proceedings Act, which primarily links success to judgments or settlements.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for fees and disbursements.

The accused, charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder and aggravated assault, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of her ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights during multiple arrests and detentions, seeking the exclusion of a seized firearm, cellphones, and statements.

The Crown brought a blended application seeking a finding that five statements made by the accused to police were voluntary.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a high-risk vehicle takedown and reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused after observing a firearm in plain view.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no breaches.

Furthermore, the court found that all five statements were made voluntarily, rejecting the accused's claim that her final statement was induced by an 'under the table' deal brokered by her former counsel.

The Crown sought to admit the defendant's video and audio-recorded statement as voluntary.

The defendant brought a cross-application alleging a breach of his s. 10(a) Charter rights, seeking exclusion of the statement.

The court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the defendant's s. 10(b) Charter rights were infringed because he was not given a full opportunity to engage with counsel after it became apparent he was confused about the extent of his jeopardy.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the statement, finding the breach significant and not critical to the Crown's case.

The Applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award concerning the sale of a jointly owned property, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to invalidate prior court orders granting her a right of first refusal.

The Respondent sought dismissal, arguing the prior orders were not final and the arbitrator acted within scope.

The court found the arbitrator correctly determined he lacked jurisdiction to enforce court orders, but erred in concluding he could invalidate them or direct a sale without formal agreement.

The court set aside the portion of the award requiring the property's sale and the reimbursement of expenses, upholding the Applicant's right of first refusal.

The plaintiff, a former paramedic, was involuntarily admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health Act following a situational crisis and substance abuse relapse.

While in a mental health seclusion room, he became highly agitated, wrapped his hands in fabric, and made threatening gestures toward security staff.

Pursuant to a physician's order, hospital security guards entered the room and physically restrained the plaintiff so that chemical restraints could be administered.

The plaintiff sued the hospital and the security guards, alleging unnecessary and excessive use of force, an unsafe room environment, and that his blood was taken without consent.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the security guards acted reasonably, the force used was not excessive, the room was safe, and the plaintiff had consented to the bloodwork.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that an equipment lease, general security agreement, and personal guarantee with the defendant financing company were void after the equipment supplier absconded with the advanced funds and failed to deliver the equipment.

The financing company counterclaimed for the balance owing under the lease.

The court found that the financing company failed to ensure delivery of the equipment before advancing funds, constituting a fundamental breach.

Furthermore, the court held that the no-cancellation clause was unenforceable because the financing company failed to bring it to the plaintiffs' attention.

The agreements were declared void, the financing company's claim was dismissed, and it was ordered to return the funds paid by the plaintiffs.

The parties, former law partners, brought cross-motions regarding the dissolution of their partnership and the winding up of their jointly owned corporation.

The defendant sought partial summary judgment on consent for a declaration of dissolution and an accounting, which the court granted, directing a reference.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to request a winding up of the corporation and a forced sale of the defendant's shares rather than the sale of the corporation's building.

The court allowed the amendments, finding them not untenable in law, and ordered the winding up of the corporation on consent.

The applicant sought an order declaring a December 2014 will as the valid last will of the deceased, and invalidating a subsequent June 2015 will propounded by the respondent.

The respondent, who was the deceased's caregiver, had drafted the June 2015 will which named her as the primary beneficiary and estate trustee.

The court found that the respondent failed to prove due execution of the June 2015 will.

Furthermore, the court found significant suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will, including the deceased's isolation, dependency on the respondent, and the respondent's unauthorized use of the deceased's funds.

The respondent failed to rebut the presumption of invalidity with corroborating evidence.

The court declared the December 2014 will valid.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances filed on behalf of an employee who was placed on indefinite layoff.

The employee, a cleaner, was banned from the work site by the third-party property owner.

The employer, having no other work for the employee under the single-site collective agreement, laid her off rather than terminating her for just cause.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov and found that the arbitrator's decision was internally coherent and consistent with established labour jurisprudence regarding third-party site bans.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary spousal and child support order, arguing the motions judge failed to apply a shared parenting offset.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that even if a factual error occurred, the issue did not meet the test for leave to appeal.

The court emphasized that temporary support orders are designed to maintain a reasonable state of affairs pending trial, and errors are better addressed at trial rather than through costly interlocutory appeals.

The court issued reasons specifically to discourage the family law bar from bringing unmeritorious motions for leave to appeal temporary support orders.

The applicants sought to quash an order of the Small Claims Court that amended the defendants to include a representative of a trade union.

The applicants argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to make a representation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Small Claims Court Rules contain a gap regarding representation orders, which the Deputy Judge properly filled by relying on Rule 1.03(2) to apply Rule 12.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for statutory accident benefits by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred by excluding opinion evidence from the appellant's treating family physician and by failing to properly assess the issue of causation.

The court held that the adjudicator's erroneous evidentiary ruling infected the fact-finding process and that the failure to state the proper test for causation rendered the reasons insufficient.

The decisions below were set aside and the matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting a video of his interaction with the breath technician who was unavailable to testify, finding no breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel, and rejecting his defence that his autism spectrum disorder provided a reasonable excuse for refusing the breath demand.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the video was admissible as direct evidence, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in contacting counsel, and the trial judge's findings on impairment and lack of reasonable excuse were supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff was injured when a snow thrower tire rim exploded, causing a laceration to his shin.

The defendants admitted liability for the laceration but disputed the plaintiff's claim that he subsequently developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).

The court found that the plaintiff did develop CRPS as a result of the incident, which permanently impacted his ability to work full-time.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's damages should be reduced due to pre-existing conditions, a subsequent motor vehicle accident, or a failure to mitigate.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future loss of income, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims, and declined to deduct disability benefits received by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the individual defendants, Robert Paul Rawlings and Darlene Ann Rawlings, and a declaration that the judgment would survive their bankruptcy.

The plaintiff had paid deposits to Rawlings Constructors Limited for a custom home that was never completed, and the corporation subsequently went bankrupt.

The plaintiff argued that the individual defendants were personally liable due to fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a book's authorship, and that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no personal liability for the Rawlings post-bankruptcy, no fiduciary duty, no fraudulent misrepresentation, and no basis to pierce the corporate veil.