Mario D. Faieta

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dismissing their appeal from an order of the Director.

The appellants argued that the Director improperly implemented a settlement by revoking a prior order and issuing a new one, rather than amending the existing order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal that the form of implementation was immaterial and that the new order substantively implemented the settlement.

The applicant, the 85-year-old mother of the deceased filmmaker Charles Herbert Officer, sought extensive financial and corporate disclosure from various respondents to support her application for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondents, including the estate trustee, the deceased's former partner, and business associates, had already provided significant financial disclosure, including tax returns, bank statements, and a business valuation.

Justice Faieta dismissed the applicant's motion for further disclosure, finding the requests overbroad, unnecessary, and lacking proportionality, with minor exceptions consented to by the Estate Trustee.

The application was also dismissed on consent against several professional respondents.

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 Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding the revocation of a motor vehicle dealer's registration.

The appellant Registrar opposed the motion, arguing the LAT's intervention would defend its own decision and compromise impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed factum provided a nuanced analysis of the standard of review without taking a position on the merits, thereby offering a useful contribution without raising impartiality concerns.

The applicant, a university student, sought judicial review of an interim decision by the University of Toronto's Academic Appeals Committee (UTAAC) which found it had no jurisdiction to enforce the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) against the Toronto School of Theology (TST).

The TST brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior decision of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), which had already determined that the TST was not an institution subject to FIPPA.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment that dismissed her nuisance action.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time and found that the moving party failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to appeal, provided no affidavit explaining the delay, and raised grounds of appeal that lacked merit.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding party.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that declined to hear four health and safety grievances related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a correctional facility.

The Arbitrator had ruled the grievances were barred by issue estoppel and collateral attack because the union had previously sought orders from Ministry of Labour inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for the same issues but failed to appeal the inspectors' decisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's application of issue estoppel and collateral attack was reasonable.

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 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 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 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 appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when he claimed to have a medical appointment in the U.S., and by relying on allegedly false evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the medical note lacked sufficient detail to justify an adjournment and there was no evidence the landlord's affirmed testimony was untrue.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her catastrophic impairment designation and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the Vice-Chair provided insufficient reasons, relied on issues not raised in the denial letters, denied her procedural fairness, and made unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the Vice-Chair provided comprehensive reasons, properly applied the 'but for' test for causation, afforded procedural fairness, and made reasonable findings based on the evidence.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a university grading decision.

During the hearing, the respondent university argued that the applicant had not formally raised the Associate Dean's decision not to reassess his course work in the Notice of Application.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, permitted the applicant to amend his Notice of Application to include the reassessment decision, and allowed the university to assemble a complete record on that issue.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent insured was not barred by the two-year limitation period from claiming income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal had concluded that the insurer's termination letter was not a clear and unequivocal denial because it left open the possibility of future benefits upon submission of an updated disability certificate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the letter as ambiguous was both reasonable and correct.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to extend the time for the insurer's reconsideration request.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application as an abuse of process due to his persistently discourteous and disruptive behaviour.

The applicant alleged reasonable apprehension of bias, procedural unfairness, and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court declined to dismiss the judicial review for delay, accepting the applicant's medical explanation.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no breach of procedural fairness, and concluding that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the underlying application for abuse of process was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant corporation brought a motion for leave to be represented by its sole operating officer, a non-lawyer, on an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The court applied Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires corporations to be represented by a lawyer except with leave.

Finding insufficient evidence of the corporation's inability to afford a lawyer and noting the proposed representative's weak ability to advance legal arguments, the court dismissed the motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Small Claims Court decision of a Deputy Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,711.95.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.