Michael N. Varpio

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring them to pay $2,000 in rent arrears.

The tenants had vacated the premises with 30 days' notice instead of the required 60 days, arguing they had assigned the lease.

The Board found the landlord reasonably refused consent to the assignment because the tenants failed to provide requested financial information about the proposed assignees.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding no error of law or procedural unfairness, and noted the tenants were correctly barred from raising the landlord's non-compliance with the Act because they failed to provide the required statutory notice.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating the total delay and subtracting periods attributable to the defence, including waived delays.

The net delay was found to be below the Jordan ceiling, leading to a presumption of reasonableness.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the case took longer than it should have.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

This decision concerns the quantum of costs following a successful motion by the applicant to compel the sale of a home.

The applicant sought approximately $27,000 in costs.

The court found this amount disproportionate given the relative simplicity of the motion and the value of the property in a non-urban area.

While acknowledging the applicant's full success and the respondent's lack of meaningful participation, which warranted a higher sanction, the court reduced the award to $10,000, emphasizing the principle of proportionality in costs awards.

The deceased died intestate, leaving a common-law spouse of over twenty years and an adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The spouse brought an application for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act, which was granted by the application judge who awarded the entirety of the estate to the spouse.

The daughter's estate appealed, arguing the application judge erred in his treatment of the daughter's residual legal entitlement, the moral duty owed to the grandchildren, and the paramountcy of the spouse's claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge made no errors in principle, properly balanced the competing claims, and reasonably exercised his discretion in prioritizing the spouse's needs given the shortfall in the estate.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal asserting jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a water and sewage servicing agreement with the respondent municipality.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the agreement's termination clause by failing to apply a pragmatic and common-sense approach and by considering subsequent conduct without finding ambiguity.

Because the agreement had validly terminated, the statutory basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Municipal Act was removed.

The appeal was granted and the Tribunal's order was quashed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty physical altercation with his estranged wife.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the OCPC reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer properly admitted hearsay evidence, correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct, and imposed a penalty within the appropriate range.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of Income Replacement Benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the adjudicator's assessment of expert evidence and the respondent's conduct were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court concluded there was ample evidence to support the adjudicator's factual findings.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to continue a joint retainer with an accountant and to produce documents to assist the accountant.

The appellants had lost confidence in the accountant and purported to terminate the relationship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by effectively ordering specific performance of a professional relationship where the client had lost confidence.

As the order for the continued retainer was quashed, the order for document production was also set aside.

The applicant, a racialized individual with no criminal record, applied for a Special Constable position with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

He was denied the position after failing a pre-screen background check conducted by the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).

The TPSB refused to provide reasons or disclose the information relied upon.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that the TPSB's decision was of sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review and that the TPSB breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with reasons and an opportunity to respond.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the TPSB.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to abridge time and validate service of three expert reports, compel answers to outstanding undertakings, and amend the statement of claim to include punitive damages and relevant legislation.

The court granted the abridgment and validation for two expert reports (Ms. Wainio-Smit and Dr. Lionel Marks de Chabris), finding reasonable explanations for the delay and that any prejudice could be cured by costs or adjournment.

The motion for the third, unserved expert report was adjourned.

The request to compel undertakings was dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

The motion to amend the pleadings to add a claim for punitive damages and statutory references was granted conditionally: it would be granted if the trial is adjourned due to the expert report issues, with a costs order in favour of the defendants; otherwise, it would be dismissed due to presumed prejudice from delay.

The Mother sought to relocate the Son from Sault Ste.

Marie to the Barrie/Parry Sound area, citing better support networks and employment opportunities.

The Father opposed the relocation, emphasizing the Son's stable life and strong bonds with him and the paternal grandparents in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The court dismissed the Mother's application, finding that while her proposed plan was reasonable, the benefits of relocation did not outweigh the significant detriment of severing the Son's existing strong emotional ties with his Father and paternal grandparents.

The decision underscored that maintaining maximum parental contact and emotional stability was in the child's best interests.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an order to permit her to take the parties' two children to Australia for a six-month period.

The father opposed the motion.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting that while the older child was nearly an adult, the younger child's mental health and academic situation made a six-month disruption potentially harmful.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the temporary relocation was not in the youngest child's best interests and that the children should not be separated.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination application against her professional regulatory college.

The HRTO had dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period, challenged adjudicative functions protected by immunity, and relied on inadmissible investigation documents.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding the college's constitutional status, minor corrections made to the HRTO decision, and the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration request.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a Certificate of Pending Litigation against their property after they terminated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider a schedule requiring direct deposit, improperly considered their subjective intentions, and erroneously assessed the property's uniqueness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants could not raise the schedule interpretation for the first time on appeal, and that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the equities or the uniqueness of the property.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to return possession of a luxury rental home to the tenants.

The landlords had changed the locks and moved back into the home after discovering the tenants were residing in Dubai, arguing the tenancy was no longer residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction despite parallel Superior Court proceedings, the Board application was not an abuse of process, and the Board correctly interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act.

Crucially, the Court held that the term 'vacant' in s. 31(3) of the Act must be interpreted to exclude situations where a landlord illegally terminates a tenancy and moves into the unit, allowing the Board to restore possession to the wrongfully evicted tenants.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the orders of Associate Justice Graham dated March 28, 2022, and May 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,000.

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 of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party, LSN Investments Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Perell.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,985.56.

The offender pleaded guilty to firearm offences after discharging a rifle outside her brother's residence during a domestic dispute with her ex-partner.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, noting her commitment to rehabilitation while in custody.

Given the Crown's case was not overwhelming, the court placed significant weight on the guilty plea as an expression of remorse.

The offender was sentenced to time served (648 days enhanced credit) plus one day, followed by two years of probation.