Mario D. Faieta

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

The 92-year-old appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying a disputed treatment plan.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and, citing exceptional circumstances, declined to remit the matter back to the Tribunal.

Instead, the court ordered the respondent to pay the disputed plan costs of $365,257.00 with immediate effect, noting that further delay would deny the appellant any benefit from the funds.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Penman J. dated May 16, 2025.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,600 to the responding party.

The tenant appealed an Eviction Order and a Review Order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which upheld her eviction for non-payment of rent and dismissed her claim for a rent abatement due to an HVAC noise issue.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding when the noise was resolved and whether the landlord acted reasonably.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court also upheld the Review Member's refusal to admit new evidence.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) finding that two OPP officers committed discreditable conduct during a sexual assault investigation.

The IPRD had concluded that assigning an officer with a perceived association to a specific detachment created a potential conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the IPRD's decision, finding it unreasonable because the IPRD applied a subjective standard based on the complainant's perception rather than the required objective standard of a reasonable member of the community.

The applicants, property owners along Erie Shore Drive, appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee regarding preliminary issues in their application for damages against the municipality for failing to maintain and repair the Burk Drainage Works.

The municipality cross-appealed the Referee's finding that section 79 of the Drainage Act is a strict liability provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Referee's findings that the applicants' initial notice was insufficient, that damages are limited to those occurring 45 days after proper notice is given, that historical seawalls had been lawfully replaced rather than abandoned, and that section 79 imposes strict liability without requiring proof of common law injurious affection.

The respondent, Wayne Gardner, was the estate trustee of the Estate of Tracy Gardner.

The estate was valued at approximately $583,407.53 and the three minor grandchildren were entitled to equal shares.

Following a finding of contempt of court for failing to comply with an Order to Pass Accounts dated January 7, 2022, the respondent appeared for sentencing.

The respondent admitted to misappropriating estate funds, using proceeds from the sale of two condominiums to purchase a house in Barrie that was subsequently transferred to his then-wife during separation.

The respondent claimed the remaining funds were spent on the house, repairs, furniture, tools, and trips.

At sentencing, the court imposed a six-day term of imprisonment to be served in two-day blocks on alternate weekends, ordered the respondent to pay $583,407.53 into court in instalments of $3,000 every six months, and ordered costs of $14,000.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him from his basement apartment so the landlords' daughter could occupy the unit.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused a further adjournment after his lawyer withdrew, and that the eviction was in bad faith and part of a harassment campaign involving the RCMP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant another adjournment given the history of delays, and holding that the tenant's other arguments raised questions of fact rather than questions of law.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of a terminated employee's separation allowance under a collective agreement.

The employer argued the arbitrator's findings on the start date, leaves of absence, and part-time pro-rating were unreasonable, and that the refusal to allow viva voce evidence breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the employer was afforded procedural fairness, as the parties had agreed to proceed by written submissions and the proposed viva voce evidence would not have affected the outcome.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding he breached a 15-year trading ban by participating in stock secured financings.

The Tribunal found that the lenders' sales of pledged securities constituted trades, and the appellant's actions, including sourcing financing and analyzing the value of the pledged equities for compensation tied to the sales' profits, were acts in furtherance of those trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no palpable and overriding error in its contextual analysis of the appellant's conduct.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent municipality.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to poor interpretation services at the hearing and because the same tribunal member conducted the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, as the tribunal adequately addressed the interpreter concerns and established jurisprudence permits the same adjudicator to conduct a reconsideration.

The court also found the tribunal's factual findings regarding the appellant's ability to work were reasonable.

The court considered competing claims to an investment property in Toronto, where the applicant sought partition and sale and the respondent claimed the applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him.

The court found the respondent’s trust claim statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as he had notice of the applicant’s beneficial ownership since at least 1995.

The court also found that, even if not statute-barred, the trust claim would fail on the merits because the applicant made no financial contribution to the purchase or mortgage.

The court granted partition and sale, an accounting, and division of net income since September 20, 2021.

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexual abuse of a client.

The Divisional Court found that the Committee made a palpable and overriding error in its credibility assessment of the complainant.

Although the Committee rejected the complainant's allegation that the appellant touched her vagina because her evidence was inconsistent and implausible, it failed to consider how these adverse findings affected her overall reliability regarding the other allegations.

The appeal was granted, the finding of professional misconduct was set aside, and the court declined to remit the matter for a re-hearing.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge dated March 7 and April 8, 2025.

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

The moving parties were ordered to pay all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of Brownstone J. dated February 18 and March 17, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.