M.D. Faieta J.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay after the appeal was perfected approximately ten months late.

The court applied the test for dismissing an appeal for delay and found that the appellants had maintained an intention to appeal, the delay was largely due to counsel's inaction, and the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the delay.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the enforcement of a $34,508.98 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario award pending its application for judicial review.

The applicant argued there was a real risk the respondent would be unable to repay the award if the judicial review succeeded.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the evidence of the respondent's inability to repay was speculative and based on outdated income information.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving parties (appellants) sought a stay of several endorsements pending their appeal of an order directing a buyout of their shares in a condominium development project.

The underlying dispute involved mutual allegations of oppression between two 50% shareholders.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay pending appeal.

It found no serious issue to be tried, noting the broad discretion of the motion judge under the OBCA.

While acknowledging that loss of mortgage security could constitute irreparable harm, the court concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondents, who risked losing $25 million in financing and the entire buyout transaction if the stay were granted.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the City of Toronto from raising the flag of the State of Palestine at City Hall.

The applicants argued the approval was ultra vires, breached the City's Flag Policy, and violated the duty of neutrality.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, as the City's decision was reasonable and within its authority.

The court also found the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the tenants' rooming house tenancies and awarding damages for an illegal lockout.

The landlords argued the LTB erred by allowing them to be represented by an unlicensed friend, by permitting tenants to hear each other's evidence, and by classifying one of the appellants as a landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were responsible for their choice of representative, that parties have a right to hear evidence, and that the classification of a landlord is an unappealable question of mixed fact and law.

The appellant retained the respondents for an employment law matter and paid a $5,000 retainer.

Dissatisfied with the services, she terminated the retainer and later commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking the return of the funds, alleging she was overcharged.

The Small Claims Court struck the claim, finding it had no jurisdiction to assess or reduce legal fees.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, confirming that disputes over legal fees must be addressed through the assessment process under the Solicitors Act, and found no error in the Deputy Judge's refusal to transfer the matter to the Assessment Office.

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 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 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 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 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.