Nancy L. Backhouse

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.A. Ramsay J. dated July 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $4,320.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The Divisional Court issued an amended costs addendum after mistakenly ordering no costs on a motion for leave.

The responding party, having been successful on the motion, sought $17,747 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found this amount disproportionate given the small amount in issue ($6,610) and noted the matter arose from the responding party's failure to file in time.

Costs were fixed at $2,500.

The appellant lawyer appealed decisions of the Law Society of Ontario finding him incapacitated due to a delusional disorder and suspending him indefinitely.

The appellant had initiated numerous Federal Court actions alleging acquaintances were government spies, leading to him being declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of expert psychiatric evidence, the dismissal of motions to call witnesses and admit fresh evidence, or the tribunal's handling of the appellant's arguments.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,522.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party failed to upload costs submissions as required under the Consolidated Practice Direction, the court made no order as to costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not file any materials, no costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal's Appeal Division, which upheld a finding that he failed to cooperate with Law Society investigations between July 2023 and January 2024.

The appellant argued that the underlying decisions made factual errors and sought to introduce fresh evidence showing the investigations were eventually closed with a note thanking him for his cooperation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant's responses during the relevant period were neither substantive nor complete.

The fresh evidence was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to a later time period.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order that he complete a specified continuing education or remediation program and undergo practice monitoring.

The order arose from a complaint regarding the installation of video cameras in his dental office and concerns about patient privacy and informed consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Board to uphold the disposition given the inadequacy of the applicant's patient consent forms and signage, even though the new cameras were not yet operational.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits and dismissing his bad faith claim against the insurer.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the application but dismissed it on the merits, finding the LAT's conclusions regarding insufficient medical evidence and procedural choices were reasonable.

The court also held that punitive damages are unavailable on judicial review of LAT decisions.

The application was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the insurer.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's orders for unpaid wages to the individual respondents.

The applicant argued the respondents were never employees and raised issues of procedural fairness regarding witness coaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably relied on documentary evidence due to credibility issues on both sides, and held there was no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings or its failure to address an alternative argument not raised before it.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) finding that two OPP officers committed discreditable conduct during a sexual assault investigation.

The IPRD had concluded that assigning an officer with a perceived association to a specific detachment created a potential conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the IPRD's decision, finding it unreasonable because the IPRD applied a subjective standard based on the complainant's perception rather than the required objective standard of a reasonable member of the community.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against his ophthalmologist.

The applicant suffered a rare complication following cataract surgery, resulting in loss of sight in his left eye.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's investigation was adequate and the HPARB's decision was reasonable, noting that the ICRC's mandate is to screen complaints, not to determine civil liability or causation.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties failed to upload costs submissions as required under the Consolidated Practice Direction, the court made no order as to costs.

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 of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was provided by the responding party, no costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dated April 1, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion to be determined in the cause by the assessment officer.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim determination made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without prejudice to either party seeking leave for judicial review once a final determination is made.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant, an adjunct professor, sought judicial review of the respondent university's decision not to proceed with her complaint regarding an open letter signed by students concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The university had appointed an external reviewer who concluded the students did not breach the student code of conduct.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to decline to hear the judicial review application, finding that adequate alternative forums, such as a grievance under the collective agreement or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, were more appropriate to address the applicant's concerns.