Mario D. Faieta

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 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 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 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.

Several moving parties sought leave to appeal decisions of Dineen J. and Dow J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal brought by Nantu Kumar Ghosh, Christian Levasseur, and Tinku Ghosh because they were filed past the deadline without any request for an extension of time, and in some cases relied on unsworn materials or failed to explain the basis for leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

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.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party did not seek costs or file a costs outline.

The defendant sought a stay of an order requiring him to attend a summary judgment motion, pending his motion for leave to appeal that order.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred by allowing the use of a Simplified Procedure form and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal lacked strength, the defendant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision, and for leave to appeal and introduce new evidence.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and the request to introduce new evidence.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of an application challenging the validity of Augustus Kenrick Forde’s will.

The court reviews the principles for awarding costs in estate litigation, ultimately ordering the applicant to pay 50% of the respondents’ partial indemnity costs, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

Claims for full indemnity costs and additional costs by the estate trustee are dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that his 'ethical veganism' was not a creed under the Human Rights Code.

Prior to the decision, the parties had settled the underlying complaints, withdrawing them and agreeing not to refile, though preserving the right to seek judicial review on the preliminary issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.