Michael G. Emery

The applicant brought a motion for the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home in Ontario, and for sole carriage of the sale.

The respondent argued the court in Nigeria had assumed jurisdiction over the family case.

The court held it had jurisdiction to order the sale under the Partition Act as the property was located in Ontario.

The court ordered the partition and sale, granted the applicant carriage of the sale, and directed that the respondent's share of the proceeds be held in trust pending further court order.

Following two motions where the applicant's application was struck in part and his motion to set aside an administrative dismissal was granted on terms, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party as she achieved a result as good as her offer to settle.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable behavior and delay, the respondent was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $23,707.40 inclusive of HST, payable within 30 days.

The applicants sought directions to remove the respondent's notice of objection to their application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The respondent claimed a financial interest in the estate based on an alleged debt owed by the deceased for partnership expenses related to a jointly owned property.

The court found that the respondent was merely a creditor or potential creditor, which does not constitute a 'financial interest' in the estate under Rule 75.03(1).

Consequently, the respondent lacked standing to maintain the notice of objection, and the application was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

The 92-year-old appellant suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits to modify her daughter's home, where she intended to move to receive 24-hour care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, holding that the appellant first had to prove her existing condominium could not be modified.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by imposing an unlegislated threshold and adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of 'existing home' under section 16 of the SABS.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the claimed benefits immediately.

The applicant father brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of his family law application, which had been dormant for seven years.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to strike his pleadings for failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court applied the Reid factors and granted the motion to set aside the dismissal, finding the applicant took steps just in time to revive the application.

However, applying the Mullin framework, the court granted the cross-motion and struck the applicant's pleadings due to his egregious and ongoing failure to obey disclosure orders, while preserving his right to participate at trial solely on parenting issues.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding she persistently paid rent late and ordering her to pay rent in full and on time for a year.

The tenant argued she paid partial rent on time because she was disputing a rent increase and self-abating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Residential Tenancies Act, rent means the entire amount due, and any shortfall constitutes late payment.

The Court confirmed that tenants are not permitted to self-abate rent and must pay in full pending LTB adjudication of any abatement claims.

The moving parties, comprising various social media companies including Meta, Snap, and TikTok entities, brought motions for leave to appeal the substantive and costs orders of Leiper J. The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal without costs and directed the parties to provide an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The appellant defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the payment of settlement funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a defendant who pays settlement funds directly to a plaintiff in the face of a Solicitors Act charging order does so at its peril.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party solicitors.

The 92-year-old appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying a disputed treatment plan.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and, citing exceptional circumstances, declined to remit the matter back to the Tribunal.

Instead, the court ordered the respondent to pay the disputed plan costs of $365,257.00 with immediate effect, noting that further delay would deny the appellant any benefit from the funds.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Penman J. dated May 16, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,600 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) sought a declaration that it is the proper owner of a parcel of land (PIN 37092-0350(R)) within the Hibou Conservation Area.

The respondent, Leroy David Dirckx, claimed title based on a chain of title beginning in 2013.

The court reviewed the historical chain of title, the registry and land titles systems, and allegations of a fraudulent scheme to create a false chain of title.

The court found that GSCA had established ownership by chain of title and, alternatively, by adverse possession.

The court granted a vesting order in favour of GSCA and extinguished any claim of Dirckx or others to the property.

The applicant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 304, brought an unopposed application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking to enforce the Act and its Declaration against the respondents, owners and occupant of a condominium unit.

The application arose from the respondents’ repeated refusal to allow access to their unit to investigate and repair a water leak affecting the unit below, as well as ongoing harassing and disruptive conduct by the occupant, Rick Goncza.

The court found the evidence uncontradicted, held that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and Declaration, and granted the orders sought, including access for repairs and a cease and desist order against Rick Goncza.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, jointly and severally against all respondents.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Kimmel J. dated June 18, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $6,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving respondents sought dismissal of an application concerning management and control of two respondents' affairs and assets based on the applicant's non-compliance with a prior timetable order and, alternatively, for delay.

The court held that although the applicant had clearly breached the order by serving further evidence late and paying prior costs late, dismissal was a remedy of last resort and was not warranted on this record.

Instead, the late-served new evidence was struck as inadmissible and ordered purged from the record, along with any references to it in the factum.

The alternative delay motion also failed because the respondents did not establish inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay creating a substantial risk of an unfair hearing.

Partial indemnity costs of $6,000 were awarded to the moving respondents.