Nancy L. Backhouse

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,823.85, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Law Society of Ontario sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal, which had set aside a Hearing Division decision denying the respondent's application for licensing.

The respondent, a former lawyer whose licence was revoked following misappropriation and criminal fraud convictions, applied for reinstatement but the Hearing Division found he failed to prove good character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply the appellate standard of review, impermissibly reweighed evidence, and mischaracterized the Hearing Division's findings.

The Hearing Division's decision denying the licence was restored.

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 fixed amount of $3,682.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Nadeau J. dated August 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no Costs Outline was provided, the court ordered no costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to file a costs outline.

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 party in the amount of $3,620 all inclusive.

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim against the National Dental Examining Board of Canada for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it mistakenly calculated the applicant's delay in filing as eight months instead of five days, which improperly grounded its finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The HRTO also unreasonably conflated the limitation periods for two separate claims of discrimination.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to the HRTO.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,436.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her application for catastrophic impairment benefits because she failed to attend an insurer's psychiatric examination.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by barring her entire application and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law as the appellant's counsel had confirmed to the LAT that non-CAT benefits were exhausted, making the CAT designation a prerequisite.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant had ample opportunity to make submissions and attend rescheduled examinations.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision dated February 28, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

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

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

The applicant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a patient and his registration was revoked.

After being acquitted in a related criminal trial, he sought to re-open the tribunal hearing to introduce fresh evidence.

The tribunal's Case Management Chair dismissed the motion, finding the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction under its rules to re-open the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Chair's interpretation of the tribunal's rules was reasonable and did not provide a statutory exception to the doctrine of functus officio.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of four decisions by the respondent school board finding she breached the Trustee Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the full investigation reports to the applicant and the decision-makers.

The Court also found the decisions unreasonable as they lacked intelligibility, the sanctions were excessive and punitive, and the Board failed to consider the applicant's s. 2(b) Charter rights.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision to reject their proposed billboard bus advertisement, which contained messaging regarding biological gender.

The applicants argued the decision was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and violated their freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City's process was procedurally fair and that its decision proportionately balanced the applicants' Charter rights with the City's statutory objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system for all, including transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.

The responding party was granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

However, the motions for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J., brought by both the moving party and the responding party, were dismissed without costs.

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

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

The moving parties, Joseph A. John and Intact Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Michael T. Doi dated April 16, 2024.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,972.66.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Centa J. dated May 29, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.