ODC 2008

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff was injured in an altercation with another guest at a house party hosted by the moving party.

The motion judge found that whether the moving party's role engendered a duty of care under the principles of social host liability was a genuine issue for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing that there was some evidence that could support a finding of responsibility and that the threshold test for leave to appeal was not met.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted the plaintiff standing to participate in the action.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff had a direct interest, public interest standing, and could be added via a representative order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and that neither branch of the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) was met.

The applicant tenant sought an order requiring the Landlord and Tenant Board to produce a transcript of the proceedings before the Board as part of its obligation to file the record with the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the request, clarifying that under Rule 25.2 of the Board's Rules of Practice, the Board is only required to provide a recording of the proceedings.

If a party wishes to rely on the evidence, it is their responsibility to arrange and pay for a professional transcription of the recording.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police moved to stay a disciplinary proceeding against two senior officers, alleging bias by the Adjudicator.

The motion was brought during an abuse of process hearing while the Commissioner was testifying.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Adjudicator's comments did not demonstrate bias but rather frustration with the prosecution's conduct.

The Court also noted that the Commissioner likely lacked standing to seek judicial review of a decision made by his own delegate in the disciplinary process.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing their request for a stay of the Ontario proceedings.

The motions judge had concluded that Ontario, not New Brunswick, was the appropriate forum based on the contract's attornment clause and a forum non conveniens analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from the negligent design of their home's HVAC system.

The trial judge found the defendants negligent but dismissed the claim because damages and causation were not proven.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s. 19(1.1) of the Courts of Justice Act because the claim dismissed was for more than $25,000, and a dismissal for unproven damages is not equivalent to an 'award' of zero under s. 19(1.1)(d).

In the alternative, the court held it would have dismissed the appeal on the merits as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay.

The court found that the appellant met the test to restore the appeal, noting she maintained a firm intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay due to a mistake at the Registrar's office, and raised serious issues.

The motion was granted, the appeal was restored, and the appellant was ordered to perfect the appeal by a specified date.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment in favour of the co-defendants in an action arising from a 2001 motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen, finding that the Master made no palpable and overriding error of fact and was correct in his application of the law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding co-defendants.

The defendants brought an unopposed motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a class action.

The underlying issue was whether an administration fee charged for late payments constituted 'interest' under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and noting the importance of the issue for suppliers generally.

The appeal will be heard alongside the defendants' appeal as of right from the order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff appealed a motions judge's decision regarding the interpretation of an offer to settle in a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and found no legal error in the motions judge's conclusion.

Despite a slight ambiguity, the offer to settle, when read as a whole and in the context of Rule 14 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, clearly remained open until one minute after the commencement of trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was bound by the acceptance of the offer.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Justice Wilton-Siegel regarding an Anton Piller order.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which properly applied the test from Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition.

The court also found that the appeal did not raise matters of general importance, as the issues were essentially factual and lacked jurisprudential value.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment and lacked jurisdiction to impose a condition requiring completion of an alcohol withdrawal program.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the continuing dangerous condition and the tenant's consent order to vacate.

The Court also held the condition issue was moot and, regardless, permitted under s. 204 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Master Dash on the issue of costs only.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in exercising his discretion with respect to costs against the plaintiffs.

The court noted that a relevant precedent with virtually identical facts had not been brought to the Master's attention.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his motion to vary an order under Rule 59.06 following a construction lien trial.

The Divisional Court found that the Master made no error of law, did not exercise his discretion improperly, and made no palpable or overriding error.

The Master correctly concluded there was no fresh evidence, no accidental slip regarding the Scott Schedules, and no enforceable fixed-price contract between the parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that reduced his compensation award from $8,000 to $5,000 due to his failure to report the assault to the police.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by failing to consider evidence that a possible concussion inhibited him from reporting the incident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting the Board had ample evidence from medical records to conclude the appellant was not suffering from a concussion that would have affected his ability to assist the police.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board on the basis of procedural fairness.

The tenant missed the hearing because she mistakenly believed it was scheduled for September 28 instead of September 21.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's confusion was understandable given the Board's internal documentation and previous discussions.

Emphasizing that natural justice requires a broad interpretation of being reasonably able to participate, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a different Member for a new hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision, and that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general importance due to the exceptional factual circumstances of the case.

The court also dismissed the defendants' motion for security for costs, as there was no good reason to believe the plaintiff's action was frivolous and vexatious.

Given the mixed results, no costs were awarded.

The applicants sought costs following a successful judicial review application.

The court reviewed the lengthy submissions and deducted amounts claimed for an initial, unsuccessful application brought before the Commercial Court.

The court also disallowed partial indemnity rate increases that exceeded the actual rates charged to the client.

Costs were fixed at $151,065.82, inclusive of fees, GST, and disbursements.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.