Michael A. Penny

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 parties sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 26, 2020 order.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fowler Byrne J. dated February 6, 2020.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order under the Partition Act.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was a final order under the Partition Act, meaning an appeal lies to the court as of right and leave is not required.

The court deemed the appeal to have been commenced and provided directions for a potential stay motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of MacEachern J. dated November 20, 2020, and Audet J. dated December 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant, a unionized employee, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that settled his human rights grievance for $31,000, an amount he argued was inadequate.

The respondent union, supported by the employer, brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to an allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant lacked standing to seek judicial review of the arbitration award, as he did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting individual employee standing.

The moving party abandoned his motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $200 to the responding party forthwith.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellant tenant failed to appear at the peremptory hearing and failed to pay the monthly rent as required by the conditions of a previous adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent landlord.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $4,625.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to supplement the record of proceedings for her judicial review application with almost 5,000 pages of additional documents.

She argued these documents were 'documentary evidence filed with the tribunal' under s. 20(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because she had sent them to the tribunal's registrar and executive chairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that merely sending documents to tribunal officials or providing them during disclosure does not make them evidence in a hearing.

The applicant failed to meet the Keeprite test for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee terminated for sexual harassment and dishonesty during the investigation.

The arbitrator had substituted the dismissal with a 30-day suspension and a condition that any future sexual harassment would result in automatic termination, binding any future arbitrator to only determine if harassment occurred.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that termination was not the only appropriate penalty, as it was based on reasonable factual findings.

However, the Court found the penalty unreasonable because the arbitrator lacked statutory authority under the Labour Relations Act to bind future arbitrators.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine the appropriate penalty.

The applicant, Hudson's Bay Company, sought judicial review of a regulation that required its department stores to close during the COVID-19 pandemic while allowing big box stores that sell groceries to remain open.

The applicant argued the distinction was irrational and ultra vires the enabling statute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the regulation was authorized by the Reopening Ontario Act and consistent with its purpose of balancing public health measures with economic concerns.

The court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to assess the wisdom or efficacy of the government's policy choices.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing his application to review and change child support obligations under minutes of settlement.

The trial judge, unable to determine the parties' incomes, had ordered the continuation of the original $725 monthly payment.

The Divisional Court found this was an error of law and a palpable and overriding error of fact, as a review requires de novo findings of income and an assessment of the equal parenting time under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was allowed in part and a new trial was ordered.

Three appeals were scheduled to be heard regarding whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for statutory accident benefits applications.

The LAT had previously made conflicting decisions on this issue and indicated it did not intend to appear.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeals and ordered the LAT to intervene and file materials to assist the court in determining the jurisdictional issue.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages to personal property stored in the respondent's apartment building.

The trial judge found that the respondent was a gratuitous bailee and had not breached the applicable standard of care of gross negligence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference from the respondent's decision not to call two former employees as witnesses, and by misapprehending the evidence regarding the duty of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.