Michael R. Dambrot

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their appeal from a Master's decision.

The Master had dismissed their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant accounting firm, limiting the scope of relevant documents to those relating to the fraud identified in a forensic auditor's report.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order regarding relevance.

Although the motion judge erred in applying an overly restrictive standard of review, this error had no impact on the outcome.

The appellant appealed an order denying her leave to commence a derivative proceeding on behalf of a dissolved corporation.

The motions judge had found that the appellant was not acting in good faith due to substantial delay and a multiplicity of actions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge's finding of a lack of good faith was owed deference and that the appellant failed to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order prohibiting the respondents from making further motions in the proceedings without leave of a judge, pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying matter involved an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, to which the respondents responded with a counter-application seeking four billion dollars and alleging a massive conspiracy.

The court found that the respondents had initiated an endless string of unsuccessful, frivolous, and vexatious motions containing bizarre and scandalous allegations against judges and officials.

Applying the principles for vexatious proceedings, the court granted the motion and ordered costs of $1,500 payable to the Attorney General.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision dismissing her appeal of an Arbitrator's interlocutory order.

The Arbitrator had found that the insurer's failure to comply with notice requirements before terminating income replacement benefits did not entitle the applicant to ongoing benefits prior to a hearing on the merits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate's decision to reject the interlocutory appeal was a reasonable exercise of discretion under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for certification and a related employer declaration against SNC.

The Board had found that SNC was not the employer of two construction labourers working on an SNC job site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's determination of the true employer using the York Condominium factors was reasonable and fell squarely within its expertise.

The Court also rejected the union's argument that the Board breached natural justice by suggesting another entity might be the employer, noting the only material issue was whether SNC was the employer.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision refusing leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion because it was brought more than two years after the decision, well beyond the four-day limit in Rule 61.16(6), with no reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the court noted that such a motion will only be granted if the motions judge declined jurisdiction, which did not occur in this case.

The applicant, a registered nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which issued a Letter of Caution and required remediation.

The College conceded that the ICRC breached procedural fairness by relying on witness statements without disclosing them to the applicant or providing an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court quashed the ICRC's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh determination, while dismissing the applicant's other jurisdictional and Charter arguments.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a Direction to Exclude issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The applicant argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made an unreasonable decision based on inadmissible evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had previously agreed to the rescission of an earlier direction and to proceed by written submissions.

The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's decision was reasonable given that the core allegations were undisputed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing that the Board's mid-hearing decision to require will-say statements and limit examination-in-chief to thirty minutes was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no prospect of real unfairness on the record and noting that judicial review of administrative action during a pending hearing should generally be avoided until the hearing is completed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a motions judge's dismissal of an ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving party argued the motions judge erred in finding no fraudulent conveyance and requiring an interest in land.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that because the underlying decision was ex parte, conclusory, and contrary to established law, it had no precedential value and granting leave would serve no public interest.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add a new cause of action.

The defendant argued the new claim was time-barred and relied on Rule 62.02(4), asserting the motion judge's decision conflicted with other cases on discoverability under the Limitations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that a failure to apply established principles does not constitute a conflicting decision requiring resolution under the Rule.

The applicant, a medical resident dismissed from the respondent's neurosurgery program, brought an application for judicial review alleging breaches of natural justice and his Charter right to freedom of expression.

He brought a motion to amend his Notice of Application to add a request for a Charter declaration and to admit fresh affidavit evidence.

The court granted the amendment, finding it was not an independent claim but a request for a declaration regarding the decision under review.

The court partially admitted the affidavit evidence, allowing portions that demonstrated a potential breach of natural justice or met the test for fresh evidence, while excluding irrelevant or repetitive paragraphs.

The employer appealed a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff damages based on a six-month notice period for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court upheld the summary judgment, finding no material facts in dispute regarding the notice period or mitigation efforts.

However, the court reduced the damages by $2,800 due to a calculation error regarding benefits.

The court also granted leave to appeal costs and increased the plaintiff's costs award to $18,000, finding the motion judge erred by failing to apply the cost consequences of Rule 49 after the plaintiff made a favourable offer to settle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirming the Chief of Police's dismissal of his complaint against police officers.

The complaint, alleging assault and fabricated charges, was dismissed because it was made more than six months after the incident.

The Divisional Court found the Commission's decision reasonable, noting a 14-month delay in bringing the complaint, including a four-month delay after the related charges were disposed of.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

During an appeal, an added party sought to raise a Charter challenge to provisions of the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the constitutional question, noting that the evidentiary record was woefully inadequate.

Furthermore, the order adding the party explicitly stated that it was not to unduly widen the scope of the appeal.

The court held that a Charter application could be brought at any time on a proper record, but it would not be heard in the current appeal nor referred back to the motions judge.

The appellant appealed a decision declining to exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction regarding his detention as an involuntary patient at a psychiatric hospital.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the underlying decision was a final order, meaning any appeal must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would have declined to hear the appeal as the issue was moot and no live controversy remained.

During an appeal regarding a municipal election, the intervenor/appellant sought to introduce affidavit material detailing after-the-fact efforts to determine voter eligibility through canvassing and signed forms.

The Divisional Court ruled the evidence inadmissible, citing concerns over its hearsay nature and lack of reliability based on how it was compiled.

Consequently, the responding affidavit material was also excluded.

The appellant, a tenant of 33 years, sought an extension of time to appeal an eviction order made under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the appellant had formed an intention to appeal, the delay was short and explained, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court held that the appellant raised an arguable ground of appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 72(2)(a) of the Act, which had not been previously judicially interpreted.

The application to extend time was granted.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order granting the responding party interim disbursements of $25,300.99 for legal fees, payable from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The application judge had ordered the disbursement to 'level the playing field' after the moving party's legal aid lien was paid from the proceeds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions on whether interim disbursements can be ordered solely for legal fees and whether they should be paid from funds over which the opposing party has an arguable claim, particularly when the party receiving the funds will likely owe an equalization payment.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had not paid rent since December 2010 and raised bizarre grounds of appeal, including claims of government harassment and a de facto marriage obligation.

The court found the appeal to be utterly without merit and an abuse of process intended only to stay the eviction order.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay was vacated.