Michael A. Penny

The defendants moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for a stay on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting that an order dismissing a jurisdiction motion for a stay is a final order.

Final orders of the Superior Court of Justice must be appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, not the Divisional Court.

The moving parties, Project Spokane, LLC and Sean Walsh, brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 8, 2020 order of Conway J. in a bankruptcy proceeding.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court reviewed the moving party's materials and found that leave might be warranted on a single ground: whether the motion judge erred in awarding costs to the self-represented responding party without evidence that she forewent remunerative activity, contrary to Fong v. Chan.

The responding party was granted an opportunity to respond to this issue, while leave on all other grounds was denied.

The moving party sought leave to adduce fresh evidence and leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant, a designated manager of a pharmacy, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

Following a dispensing error where a pediatric patient received the wrong medication, the ICRC ordered the applicant to receive an oral caution and complete a remedial course on root cause analysis.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable given the applicant's responsibility for pharmacy policies.

The moving parties, SP Plus Corporation Canada and Haws Overhead Doors Ltd. and Haws Door & Hardware Ltd., brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Emery J. dated February 24, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $4,000, payable equally by the moving parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 23, 2020.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 14, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the leave motion at $3,500, with entitlement to those costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the March 19, 2020 order of Moore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the defendant in the amount of $4,500.

The parties, equal shareholders in six corporations holding real property, were engaged in a commercial dispute involving competing oppression claims.

The motion judge appointed a Sales Officer to initiate a process for the potential sale of the properties.

The appellant appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal, while the respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory and required leave.

The Divisional Court held that the order was interlocutory because any actual sale required further court approval, meaning no substantive rights were finally determined.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of leave, and the motion for a stay was dismissed as premature since no irreparable harm could occur before a sale was approved.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the September 15, 2020 order of Justice E.M. Morgan.

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

The self-represented appellant tenant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing because the respondent landlord failed to comply with a case management directive regarding the service of materials.

The tenant received the materials only a week before the hearing and required time to seek legal advice.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment on conditions, including that the tenant pay rent on specified dates, and reserved the costs of the attendance to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Desotti J. dated July 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $2,200.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order but failed to comply with a procedural order requiring her to perfect the appeal and pay rent arrears.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed, the stay of eviction was lifted, and she was evicted.

She subsequently brought a motion for a full panel review of the procedural order.

The Divisional Court, on its own initiative, dismissed the motion as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.02, finding that the procedural order was spent and any review was moot.

The court also prohibited the tenant from bringing further motions without leave.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Master's decision that stayed their action in favour of arbitration.

The underlying dispute involved an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction home containing a mandatory arbitration clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed appeal had no merit because section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act precludes appeals from decisions granting a stay.

The court also found no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the Master's decision.

The applicant sought a full panel review of a case management order.

The court previously raised concerns that the motion was moot because the respondent had already conducted the investigation the applicant originally sought to compel.

The court invoked Rule 2.1.02 and directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the motion should proceed.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award reinstating an employee who had been dismissed for off-duty conduct.

The employee was charged with domestic assault, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably focused on actual rather than potential reputational harm and failed to properly consider the employee's prior discipline for impaired driving and alcohol consumption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable, as the arbitrator correctly applied the test for off-duty conduct and made factual findings that the conduct did not risk harming the employer's reputation and was not attributable to intoxication.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reinstating a railway conductor who was terminated following a positive urine test for marijuana.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably excluded an expert report on marijuana impairment tendered eight days before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably exercised his discretion to exclude the late report to protect the integrity and fairness of the expedited arbitration process.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that a positive urine test, without corroborating evidence of impairment, did not establish a violation of the employer's drug policy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed her complaint against her union, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA).

The applicant alleged the ONA failed in its duty to accommodate her disability.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, as neither the employer nor the union knew of the disability prior to termination, and the employer subsequently refused to consider reinstatement.

The court confirmed that a union cannot be found to impede accommodation efforts when the employer makes no such efforts.