Mr. Justice H.J. Wilton-Siegel

The applicant land surveyor sought a stay of a discipline panel decision revoking his licence and a stay of the publication of the decision pending his appeal.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the proportionality of the penalty, and that the balance of convenience favoured staying the licence revocation to prevent irreparable harm to his practice.

However, the court declined to stay the publication of the decision, noting the open court principle and the fact that the applicant had already disclosed the decision to third parties.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs order of $30,000 awarded against them following their unsuccessful motion to vary a Mareva injunction.

They argued that the motion judge erred by not providing written reasons for the costs award, particularly after receiving their late submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions requiring written reasons for costs awards under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the record disclosed a proper basis for the judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $25,000 to the respondents.

The respondents had loaned $35,000 to a deceased family member, and the appellants had signed a written acknowledgment to repay the loan from the proceeds of a house sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the action was not statute-barred due to the written acknowledgment and the date of discovery.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding of a constructive trust over the sale proceeds and concluded that the trial judge's interventions during the self-represented trial did not amount to bias.