Michael A. Penny

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the November 30, 2020 order of Davies J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as neither party filed a bill of costs.

The appellant appealed a final order regarding retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the parties' daughter remained a 'child of the marriage' while attending college and that the respondent was entitled to retroactive child support.

However, the court found the motion judge failed to adequately analyze the section 7 expenses under the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the issue of section 7 arrears was remitted to the motion judge for reconsideration.

The appellant mother abducted her children and brought them to Canada in violation of a valid divorce order from Nigeria.

The motion judge ordered the children's return to Nigeria.

The mother appealed the decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the evidence fell short of establishing the children would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court ordered the children to be returned within 14 days and awarded costs to the respondent father.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision regarding the possibility of a jury trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $5,000, noting that the defendant could renew the motion before the Superior Court of Justice if a jury trial could not proceed in May 2021.

The plaintiffs brought motions for leave to appeal the October 9, 2020 and November 6, 2020 orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motions at $10,000, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gilmore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party F.K.Y. Investments Ltd. No costs were awarded to the Yeung responding parties as they did not file a factum.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $20,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Because the responding party failed to file costs materials by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction based on serious impairment of the landlord's safety.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal as an abuse of process and manifestly devoid of merit, noting the tenant had accumulated over $10,000 in rent arrears and failed to attend the LTB hearing.

The tenant brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging the landlord changed the locks in violation of the statutory stay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding the appeal was an abuse of process designed to allow the tenant to live rent-free, and raised no extricable question of law regarding the LTB's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to require the tenants to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the statutory stay of an eviction order pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The landlord also sought security for costs.

The court found that the tenants' failure to pay rent while enjoying the protection of the statutory stay amounted to an abuse of process.

The court ordered the tenants to pay the outstanding arrears and ongoing rent to maintain the stay, but dismissed the request for security for costs to avoid unfairly burdening the tenants.

The applicant brought a refusals motion in the context of an application for judicial review of decisions denying it financial support under an agricultural risk management program.

The applicant sought to compel the decision-makers to answer questions about who authored the decisions and who was involved in the deliberative process, arguing this was necessary to advance its claim of a denial of natural justice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions were irrelevant to the pleaded natural justice ground and amounted to an unwarranted fishing expedition into deliberative privilege.

The applicants, commercial real estate developers, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Council to deny their applications for property tax rebate grants under a community improvement plan by-law.

The applicants argued that because their projects met the threshold eligibility criteria, the City was required to approve the grants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the by-law and governing legislation conferred broad discretion on the Council to consider other factors, including whether the grants were economically necessary for the projects to proceed.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded costs to the City.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Master dismissing two separate actions against his grandfather for delay.

The actions involved allegations of oral promises regarding the transfer of properties and a business.

The grandfather died at age 96 before the actions were set down for trial.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that there was inordinate and unexplained delay, and that the grandfather's death caused actual prejudice and a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible, as the cases turned on the credibility of oral representations.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Parayeski J. dated September 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,126.89.

The applicant and respondent both sought leave to appeal separate costs orders made by Nakonechny J. and Diamond J. The Divisional Court waived any technical defects in the motions and dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 21, 2020 decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the respondents did not file a cost summary.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated December 19, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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