Marie-Andrée Vermette

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding workplace health and safety following an offender's suicide in a probation office.

An MOL inspector had investigated and issued orders concerning the incident.

The arbitrator found the grievance was barred by issue estoppel, as it raised the same issues as the MOL inspection and the union could have appealed the inspector's orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the arbitrator's application of the issue estoppel test and her exercise of residual discretion were reasonable.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Facebook for allegedly making users' data available to third-party applications without consent.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed common issues regarding breach of contract and disgorgement were overly broad and required individual inquiries, and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure given the lack of evidence of compensable loss.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal three interlocutory orders made in a family law proceeding.

The motion was filed late for two of the orders and was moot for the third.

After the moving party failed to respond to court directions and a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board based on rent arrears.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in law by denying an adjournment request, failing to properly consider relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjournment denial was a discretionary decision that did not raise a question of law, the LTB properly considered the relevant circumstances for eviction relief, and the reasons provided were adequate.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review case management directions that struck his 267-page appeal factum and required him to obtain trial transcripts for a Small Claims Court appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the case management judge's directions reasonable and necessary given the moving party's flagrant breach of the Rules respecting transcripts and factums.

The court extended the deadline for the moving party to order transcripts but warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his appeal.

The self-represented applicant, facing sexual assault and other charges, brought an O'Connor application for third-party records from the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The applicant sought records relating to the provision of French language services during his pre-trial detention, arguing that inadequate services contributed to an abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the likely relevance threshold.

The court held that inadequate French language services in a detention centre do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter, nor do they engage trial fairness or the integrity of the justice system under section 7 to justify a stay of proceedings.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the unreported decision of V. Christie J. dated October 17, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated February 23, 2026.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, with no costs awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Judge to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion, noting that under section 17 of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from an Associate Judge's order lies as of right to a Superior Court Judge, not the Divisional Court.

Reduced costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party because they failed to use Rule 2.1 to dispose of the motion summarily.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and choking against his former intimate partner.

The sexual assault involved forced penetration while the victim was pregnant.

The accused, a youthful first offender with an intellectual disability and a traumatic background, faced severe collateral immigration consequences, including the termination of his refugee claim.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was sentenced to 3 years for sexual assault and 6 months consecutive for choking, for a total of 3.5 years in custody.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time for leave to appeal an interim interlocutory order and a motion for leave to appeal that order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered.

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

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 party brought a motion for an extension of time for leave to appeal the decision of R.E. Charney J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no bill of costs was provided, no costs were ordered.

The offender was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after 87 pellets of cocaine were surgically removed from his abdomen.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, citing the offender's background, anti-Black racism, and the severe collateral consequences of family separation on his two autistic sons.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the gravity of the offence but departed from the usual five-to-eight-year range for commercial trafficking.

Emphasizing the offender's rehabilitative prospects, pro-social life, and the significant impact of family separation, the court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a probation order following an altercation in a residential building.

The Crown relied on CCTV footage to prove the accused's identity and participation in the assault alongside a co-accused who stabbed the complainant with a screwdriver.

The court found that even if the accused was the man in the video, the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused the complainant's injuries or aided and abetted the co-accused.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and mischief against his former intimate partner.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the use of a knife, and the profound impact on the victim, against the mitigating factor of the offender having no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of four and a half years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for intimate partner violence and sexual offences.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation causing bodily harm, failure to stop after an accident, and operation while impaired causing bodily harm after driving the wrong way down a street and striking a pedestrian.

The accused argued he lacked the requisite mens rea because he was in a postictal amnestic state following an epileptic seizure.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and rejected the defence expert's definitive opinion, but concluded the totality of the evidence raised a reasonable doubt about whether the accused suffered a seizure and was in a postictal state at the time of the collision.

The court also found the evidence of alcohol impairment inconclusive.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The self-represented accused, facing sexual assault and related charges, brought a pre-trial motion seeking the translation of four English disclosure documents into French and an order excluding a modified PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Crown.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the accused failed to demonstrate that the lack of translated documents caused actual prejudice to his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court also held that the Crown's modification of its PowerPoint presentation was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, with no evidence of abuse of process or unfairness to the accused.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempt to choke with intent to enable a sexual assault, and one count of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, all arising from alleged incidents at a beauty salon.

The complainant was the sole direct witness and the defence called no evidence.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be riddled with material inconsistencies — particularly regarding the knife, prior incidents, and the events of March 5, 2022 — and found that her manner of testifying raised concerns about her reliability and candour.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the court found it would not be safe to convict on the evidence adduced and entered acquittals on all counts.