Lynne C. Leitch

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 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 sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and leave to appeal, two prior decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide costs submissions.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing to file materials in accordance with the Rules, including seeking leave to file a factum with a larger word count and a reply factum.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment and directed the parties to attend a case conference to establish a timetable for perfecting the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal multiple parenting and costs orders.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,907.60.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The appellant failed to perfect his appeal and advised the court he would not attend the hearing.

After waiting for the appellant to appear, the respondent landlord requested the matter be dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant failed to perfect his appeal and advised the court he would not attend the hearing.

After waiting for the appellant to appear, the respondent landlord requested the matter be dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision ordering the removal of a dog and finding violations of parking rules.

The appellant argued the CAT misapprehended evidence regarding a service dog exemption and raised new arguments including equitable estoppel and bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the CAT's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence, and declined to entertain arguments not raised before the tribunal.

The appellants' appeal from a decision of the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was adjourned to April 14, 2026, for a half-day hearing, through no fault of the parties.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a WSIB decision approving a worker's third-party settlement retroactively, allowing the worker to claim 'top-up' benefits under s. 30(14) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer argued the statute strictly requires WSIB approval before a settlement is made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIB's interpretation reasonable.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and the mandatory/directory distinction, the court held that the pre-approval requirement is directory, and barring the worker from benefits due to timing would undermine the remedial purpose of the Act.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home pending trial.

The parties had been separated since 2011, and the appellant had resided in the home since then, wishing to purchase the respondent's interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Partition Act.

The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that a pre-trial sale would prejudice his equalization claims or his ability to bid on the property in the open market.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated November 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to joint submissions, the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of a paragraph of a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted both leave to appeal and the stay, awarding costs of $2,500 to the moving party.

The parties were directed to schedule a case management conference and consider whether the appeal might become moot pending a motion to vary.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Rees J. dated December 18, 2024.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline or bill of costs was provided, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court dated December 12, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The applicants, a horse owner and trainer, sought judicial review of a Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP) decision upholding penalties for their horse testing above the permitted threshold for total carbon dioxide (TCO2).

They argued they were denied procedural fairness regarding disclosure of testing laboratory records, that the HRAP decision was unreasonable, and that the rule establishing the TCO2 threshold was ultra vires.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness given the HRAP's efforts to mitigate late disclosure, concluding the HRAP's reliance on the testing evidence was reasonable, and holding that the rule was within the Registrar's statutory mandate to uphold the integrity of horse racing.

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.