Michael N. Varpio

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time for leave to appeal the decision of R.E. Charney J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time for leave to appeal an interim interlocutory order and a motion for leave to appeal that order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no bill of costs was provided, no costs were ordered.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated in 2021 and have two children.

The father subsequently experienced homelessness, mental health struggles, and substance abuse issues.

Following a family law trial where the father was self-represented and failed to file materials, the court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with supervised parenting time for the father.

The court declined to impute a higher income to the father due to his personal struggles, ordering child support based on social assistance levels, and requested further submissions regarding the mother's constructive trust claim over the family home.

The accused pleaded guilty to abducting a nine-year-old child after luring him into his vehicle with ice cream and a toy.

The Crown sought 18 months' custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge, arguing the incident was a 'cultural misunderstanding' that would result in severe immigration consequences.

The court rejected the cultural misunderstanding defence and found that the gravity of the offence required a custodial sentence to address denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months' custody followed by three years' probation.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' child to Elora, Ontario, and requested sole decision-making authority, child support, and division of property.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought the child's return to Wawa or summer parenting time.

The court found that the father's untreated mental health and addiction issues, which resulted in erratic and abusive behaviour, posed a risk of psychological harm to the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court granted the mother's relocation request and sole decision-making authority, while ordering supervised parenting time for the father.

The court also ordered the sale of the matrimonial home with proceeds split equally, subject to an equalization payment, and ordered the father to pay child support.

The offender was found guilty of sexual interference for touching the buttocks and kissing a 14-year-old victim on multiple occasions.

The Crown sought a two-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous background under Gladue but emphasized denunciation and deterrence as mandated by Friesen.

Finding that the offender was not in a position of trust but noting the profound impact on the victim and the offender's lack of empathy, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed nine months of incarceration followed by two years of probation.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a Board decision requiring her to reimburse OHIP over $600,000 for COVID-19 vaccinations administered at mass clinics.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet strict billing requirements for delegated services because the medical students and other physicians who administered the vaccines were not her 'employees'.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation of the delegation requirements as reasonable.

However, the Court found the Board's refusal to grant relief under the 'extenuating circumstances' provision of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable, given the context of the global pandemic and the applicant's good faith efforts to facilitate mass vaccinations.

The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the appropriate reimbursement amount.

The moving party sought to review a decision dismissing his motion to extend the time to review a prior order, which had denied an extension of time to seek judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction decision.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the review motion, finding that the delay was excessive and prejudicial, and that the underlying proposed proceedings lacked merit because the LTB has no jurisdiction over rent-geared-to-income subsidy decisions.

The court noted that the moving party's recourse regarding his subsidy arrears lies with the municipality's administrative processes, not the LTB.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated July 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs, fixed at the agreed amount of $7,500, to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing her applications against her former employer and union.

She alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file grievances for post-layoff job applications, and claimed the OLRB process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bias, that the OLRB's written hearing process afforded procedural fairness, and that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of administrative decisions dismissing disciplinary charges against two police officers for lack of jurisdiction.

The hearing officers and the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the six-month statutory deadline under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act for serving a notice of hearing had expired.

The applicants argued that the deadline should be paused during a review by the Complaints Director.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the administrative decision-makers reasonably interpreted the plain wording of the statute, which contained no exception for a Director's review.

A youth offender convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and sexual assault sought a sentence review under section 94 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The offender had been sentenced to 30 days credit for time served, 11 months secure custody, 12 months open custody, and 12 months community supervision.

After approximately three months in youth custody, the offender was transferred to an adult facility when his application to remain in youth custody was denied.

The court found that serving the remainder of the sentence in adult custody would effectively impose a harsher sentence than originally imposed, contrary to the principles of youth criminal justice.

The court converted the remainder of the sentence to community supervision with conditions including house arrest for approximately nine months, followed by conditional supervision with relaxed mobility restrictions.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that dissolved a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the impugned order, and restored the Mareva injunction pending the final disposition of the appeal.

The court also ordered an expedited schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and awarded costs of the motion to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Perfetto J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $5,853.40 to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of Howie J. dated February 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $9,085 to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of Conway J. dated April 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to each of the responding parties, Sheldon Libfeld and Jay Libfeld.