Michael N. Varpio

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to satisfy undertakings to use "best efforts" to locate two witnesses and provide will-say statements.

The plaintiffs initially provided no details of their efforts.

After an adjournment, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit detailing searches of invoices, the internet, LinkedIn, and Canada411.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs should have "cold called" other contractors in the area.

The court found that "best efforts" does not require exhausting every conceivable avenue and held the undertakings were satisfied, dismissing the motion.

However, because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of their efforts until after the motion was brought, the court awarded costs of $1,275 to the defendants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry deeming a competing company's aggregate permit application complete.

The Ministry processes applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

The applicant argued the competing application was incomplete as it failed to meet the requirements of the Provincial Standards and Ministry Policies regarding environmental and cultural heritage reports.

The Divisional Court found the Ministry's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its own mandatory policies when assessing completeness.

The decision was quashed, but the court declined to issue an order of mandamus, instead remitting the matter back to the Ministry for reconsideration.

The sentencing hearing was scheduled to proceed, but the Gladue Report prepared by Aboriginal Legal Services arrived the evening before the hearing.

Defence counsel requested an adjournment to review the 30-page report with the accused.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, noting the importance of Gladue Reports and the need for timely filing, particularly given the value of court time during the pandemic.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Lococo J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable forthwith to the plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to declare a municipal election invalid.

They argued the removal of 1,131 names from the preliminary voters' list constituted an irregularity under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to adduce evidence that any voters were disenfranchised or that the presiding justice erred in concluding no irregularity occurred.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on impaired driving and 'over 80' charges.

The trial judge had excluded breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach, and acquitted on the impaired charge due to a reasonable doubt caused by head trauma.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider the accused's admission of drunkenness when assessing the officer's reasonable and probable grounds, and by improperly applying voir dire evidence to the trial proper.

A new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, pointing a firearm, and mischief, arising from a seventeen-year relationship with the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the major incidents, including two instances of pointing a handgun and an assault with rocks, to be credible and reliable, supported by corroborating evidence.

However, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of her testimony on lesser charges due to conflation of events over the lengthy period of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, and mischief, but acquitted of the remaining charges.

The accused was charged with arson and manslaughter following a fatal fire at a rooming house.

The Crown's case relied heavily on two alleged confessions by the accused and his history of making threats to burn down the building.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the Crown witnesses, many of whom suffered from mental health issues or had extensive criminal records.

Furthermore, the presence of a plausible alternate suspect with a motive raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both charges.

During a trial for arson and manslaughter, the Crown brought an application to admit the preliminary hearing testimony of two missing witnesses under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the necessity requirement was met because police made reasonable efforts to locate the transient witnesses.

The reliability requirement was also met as the evidence was given under oath and subject to contemporaneous cross-examination.

The application was granted and the audio recordings were admitted into evidence.

The Cooperators General Insurance Company appealed a preliminary decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) finding that the claimant was a 'dependant' and thus an insured under the policy.

The claimant argued the appeal was premature as the hearing on the merits was scheduled for a later date.

The Divisional Court agreed, dismissing the appeal as premature to avoid fragmented administrative proceedings and inefficiency.

Ontario brought a motion to quash an application by the Thessalon First Nation regarding the size of its reserve under the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850.

Ontario argued the complex historical and treaty issues required a trial rather than an application.

The court agreed that the matter required a proper evidentiary foundation and ordered the application converted to an action under Rule 38.10(1)(b), with a staged litigation process to follow.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for overholding their child.

The child was returned before the motion, and the court dismissed the contempt motion as it was not in the child's best interests.

In this costs decision, the court found the father was justified in preparing the motion materials but should not have argued the motion after the child was returned.

The court awarded the father $1,500 in costs.

The accused, charged with sexual offences, brought a Charter motion challenging the constitutionality of sections 278.92 and 278.94 of the Criminal Code.

These provisions govern the admissibility of records in the accused's possession, such as the complainant's social media messages.

The court applied the 'plainly wrong' test to a recent coordinate jurisdiction decision, R. v. Reddick, which had struck down the provisions.

Finding that Reddick was not plainly wrong, the court followed it and declared sections 278.92 and 278.94 unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident claim due to systemic delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs, who were approximately 70 years old, argued that waiting for a jury trial would cause significant delay and prejudice.

The court applied recent appellate authority and found that the uncertainty of securing a jury trial date, combined with the plaintiffs' age and the relative expedience of a judge-alone trial, warranted striking the jury notice.

The motion was granted.