ODC 2009

The applicant moved for leave to appeal an interim spousal support order and for a stay of the award.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment, considering late-filed materials, and awarding retrospective support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.

Following a successful appeal regarding the interpretation of 'fee simple, if unencumbered' for property assessment purposes, the appellants (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued the claimed fees were excessive and that the appellants should have coordinated their submissions.

The court found the issues complex, the amounts at stake substantial, and no unnecessary overlap in arguments.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs at $70,500 for fees and counsel fees for each appellant, plus their respective disbursements.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling the City of Toronto to issue notices of rent reduction to tenants of 29 residential complexes, following a reduction in municipal property taxes.

The City admitted it failed to provide the notices within the prescribed time under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that issuing the notices years late could mislead tenants, as the one-year limitation period to claim a rent reduction had already expired.

The court also declined to grant a declaration of the City's statutory breach, as it would have no practical effect, but allowed a motion to add a tenant as a party.

The appellant, who had been disbarred, brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for failure to perfect it within a year.

He also sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal and leave to file a Supplemental Notice of Appeal.

The court found that while his explanation for the delay was weak, he had an intention to perfect the appeal and would suffer irreparable harm if it were dismissed.

The court granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal but denied leave to file the Supplemental Notice of Appeal, which raised new issues.

The tenant appealed an interim eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had severed her rent abatement claims under s. 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act from the landlord's eviction application.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that it did not raise a question of law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's motions to amend her notice of appeal and strike an affidavit.

The court held that the Board did not err in law in its interpretation and application of sections 82 and 83 of the Act.

The landlord's motion to quash the appeal was granted and the stay of eviction was vacated.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that set aside official plan amendments intended to permit estate residential development in rural areas.

The Board found the amendments did not conform to the provincial Growth Plan, which directs new multiple lots to settlement areas.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation that the policy limits residential development in rural areas to three or fewer units.

The defendant sought an extension of time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that set aside a default judgment on the condition that he pay $5,000 into court.

The plaintiff had obtained the default judgment in 2007, and the defendant only moved to set it aside after being arrested for contempt for failing to attend judgment debtor examinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to appeal, his conduct showed a pattern of delay prejudicing the plaintiff, and he failed to articulate any error by the deputy judge.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim for negligent investigation against the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The plaintiffs, family members of a youth killed in a police shooting, alleged the SIU's inadequate investigation compromised their participation in an inquest and civil action.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting jurisprudence on whether police or the SIU owe a private law duty of care to victims' families, and noting the issue is of general importance to the development of the law.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to dismiss Dr. Deep's appeal for failing to comply with a previous order requiring him to post $20,000 as security for costs.

Dr. Deep had also failed to pay a $3,000 costs award and had not perfected a motion to set aside the orders, opting instead to commence a collateral action.

The court found that the collateral action was not a proper basis to defer the motion and rejected Dr. Deep's jurisdictional arguments.

The court granted Dr. Deep one final, limited opportunity to post the security for costs by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be dismissed by the Registrar without notice.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to stay the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a former employee and member of the union, sued for wrongful expulsion and breach of a settlement agreement after the union terminated his membership benefits.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was required to exhaust internal union procedures before suing.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the law regarding exceptions to the exhaustion rule and that the proposed appeal raised no issues of general importance.

The applicants sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decisions refusing an Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendment for a retail development on formerly industrial lands.

The applicants argued the OMB erred in law by applying a 1994 Official Plan policy to lands that had been redesignated as 'employment areas' under the 2002 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the legal correctness of the OMB's policy-based decision, which reasonably interpreted the Official Plan and assessed the impact of 'retail contagion' on surrounding lands.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its appeal from a Master's order.

The Master had struck a summons issued by the defendant to examine the plaintiff as a witness on a motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim for defamation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, confirming that under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no evidence is admissible on a motion to strike a pleading for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion under Rule 45.02 for an order preserving a sum of money held as cash collateral.

The appellant argued that its obligations under a Letter of Credit Agreement were discharged because the respondent entered into a forbearance agreement with the principal borrower, materially altering the guaranteed loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement was for a standby letter of credit, not a guarantee, and thus the law of guarantees did not apply.

Furthermore, the cash collateral was not a specific fund to which the appellant had a proprietary claim, and the appellant had implicitly ratified the forbearance agreement by participating in the borrower's insolvency proceedings without objection.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, including numerous undisclosed Highway Traffic Act convictions related to operating an inspection station, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by ample evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board refusing to order pre-hearing disclosure of police investigation records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature as the administrative proceedings were not complete and no exceptional circumstances existed.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Board, as an impartial adjudicative body, lacks the statutory authority to compel third parties, such as police officers, to provide pre-hearing disclosure.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to order a consolidated hearing under s. 25(2) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The court found that the prerequisites for leave were met, as the correctness of the OMB's decision was open to serious debate and the matter was of sufficient importance.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeals were ordered to be consolidated with an existing appeal.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal a partial summary judgment order that refused to dismiss the plaintiff employee's breach of contract claim.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the motion judge erred in finding a triable issue regarding when the claim was discovered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision was entirely fact-based and did not involve matters of such importance that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4).

The City of Ottawa appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that allowed an official plan amendment proposed by the respondent, which the City Council had previously refused.

The central issue was whether the OMB erred in law by failing to 'have regard to' the Council's decision under s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is not required to apply a highly deferential standard of review to Council decisions, but must carefully scrutinize and consider them.

Finding that the OMB had properly analyzed and addressed each of the Council's reasons for refusal, the majority dismissed the appeal.

The appellants purchased a new home and made claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for construction defects.

Tarion denied some claims, and the appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

During the appeal process, the appellants defaulted on their mortgage, and the home was sold under power of sale.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants lost standing to pursue the warranty claims when they ceased to own the home.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that the statutory warranty runs with the land and that the appellants' claim for damages for diminution in value constituted excluded secondary damage.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for damages arising from destroyed cargo within the two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention, but failed to serve the statement of claim on the defendant airline within the time required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant appealed a master's order extending the time for service, arguing that the action was not 'brought' within the meaning of Article 29 of the Convention because it was not served within two years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that 'brought' means initiating the legal proceeding, not initiating and serving it, and that Ontario procedural rules govern the extension of time for service.