Mario D. Faieta

The applicant, a dentist facing disciplinary proceedings before the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding allegations of sexual abuse, brought an application for judicial review seeking mandamus to compel the College to obtain an unredacted copy of a police file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court found that the administrative proceeding was not complete, as the ICRC had not yet made its decision and the applicant still had the opportunity to make submissions to the ICRC regarding the need for the unredacted documents.

The court concluded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering in the ongoing administrative process.

The applicant, an internationally trained legal professional, sought judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decision to refer his licensing application to a good character hearing.

The Law Society requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the application premature, noting that the applicant could raise his procedural fairness and jurisdictional arguments before the Law Society Tribunal.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceeding, the court struck the application as an abuse of process.

The applicants, two brothers, challenged the 2018 will of their late mother, which left the majority of her estate to their third brother, the respondent.

The applicants alleged that the will was made under suspicious circumstances, that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to cognitive decline, and that the respondent exerted undue influence.

The court found that while suspicious circumstances existed, shifting the burden of proof, the respondent successfully established that the deceased knew and approved of the will's contents.

Relying on the evidence of the drafting solicitor and expert geriatric psychiatrists, the court concluded that the deceased had testamentary capacity and understood the nature of her assets and the claims of her beneficiaries.

The court further held that the applicants failed to prove that the deceased was coerced into making the will, finding instead that she simply wished to reward the respondent for his dedication and care in her final years.

The application to invalidate the will was dismissed.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision.

The underlying appeal concerned whether a hearing under s. 24.9(1)2 of the Independent Health Facilities Act is a hearing de novo.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the Board's participation would compromise its impartiality and violate the principle of finality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that because the court would be conducting a correctness review on a jurisdictional issue, the finality and impartiality concerns were muted, and the court would benefit from the Board's expertise on its home statute.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to lift a stay of eviction pending appeal.

The appellant tenant had failed to meet court-imposed deadlines for filing appeal materials and disregarded directions to pay ongoing rent.

The court found the tenant's actions amounted to an abuse of process and an attempt to game the system to live rent-free.

The motion was granted, the stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board order was lifted, and the tenant's request to reschedule the appeal hearing was dismissed.

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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $6,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

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 awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $10,000.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by the warranty corporation requiring it to pay $45,688.71 for a retaining wall.

The corporation had initially determined the retaining wall was not a warranted defect, but later reversed its position based on new submissions from the homeowner, without providing the applicant notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the corporation breached procedural fairness.

The impugned finding was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision following a fair process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on creed after her employment was terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, found no denial of procedural fairness, and concluded that the Tribunal's determination that the applicant's singular belief against the vaccine did not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision dismissing her request to reconsider an interim suspension of her certificate of registration.

The suspension was imposed after the applicant allegedly provided COVID-19 vaccine exemptions without medical justification and refused to cooperate with College investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that challenges to the appointment of investigators were premature and that the ICRC's decision to maintain the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's ongoing failure to cooperate and the resulting risk of harm to patients.

The moving parties, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs of $4,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant, a co-founder and major shareholder of a blockchain technology start-up, applied for declarations that he remains a shareholder and director after the company purported to repurchase his shares for nominal consideration under a default provision.

The respondent CEO alleged that the applicant had committed various defaults, including disparaging the company and withholding access to corporate funds.

The court found that the respondent failed to prove any of the alleged defaults, noting that much of the evidence was inadmissible double-hearsay and that the notice of default was untimely.

Additionally, the court held that the purported repurchase was void because the company failed to pay the purchase price within the strict timelines required by the agreement.

Consequently, the court granted the application.

The decision addresses a motion for contempt brought by the respondent father, who alleged that the applicant mother breached an interim parenting order by withholding their daughter.

The court reviews the history of the parties' relationship, the child's experiences, and the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court finds no evidence of alienation by the mother and concludes that the child's estrangement from the father is not due to the mother's conduct.

The contempt motion is dismissed.

The court also considers whether there has been a material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the interim order and ultimately orders that the father's parenting time remain professionally supervised, with the option of reunification therapy.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for his child, brought three preliminary motions within an application for judicial review of decisions by the Children's Aid Society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant sought unredacted disclosure of the Society's investigation records, the production of a hearing transcript by the Board, and the disqualification of the Board's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the request for unredacted records and the motion to disqualify counsel, finding no basis for either.

The court ordered the Board to release an informal audio recording of the hearing to the applicant so he could arrange for his own transcript, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction due to his cigarette smoking substantially interfering with another tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The appellant argued procedural fairness violations, including the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, and that the Board erred in not granting relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 83 was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $4,500 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision of Bezaire J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the parties failed to upload their costs materials to Case Centre as required by the court's practice direction.