ODC 2015

The appellant appealed an order bifurcating the trial of liability and damages, arguing that bifurcation cannot occur without consent when a valid jury notice exists.

The respondent municipality cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to strike the jury notice, arguing that section 108 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibits jury trials when a municipality is a party.

The Divisional Court granted leave for the cross-appeal and held that the rules and statute operate to prohibit the filing of a jury notice where a municipality is named.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, set aside the jury notice as a nullity, and consequently dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding bifurcation.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding her $2,500 in general damages (netting $0 after the statutory deductible) and a costs award of $140,000 following a motor vehicle accident trial where liability was admitted.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to charge the jury on the 'Thin Skull Rule' and by making comments that raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury verdict was reasonable and the trial judge's comments did not show bias.

The court also granted leave to appeal the costs order but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the Rule 57.01 factors despite not providing written reasons.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order directing him to provide financial disclosure in a family law dispute regarding child support.

The court applied the test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issues of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application for a rent abatement and moving costs.

The tenant had vacated the rental unit shortly after moving in, citing issues with second-hand smoke from other tenants and inadequate heat.

The Divisional Court found no error of law in the Board's determination that the landlord had not been given sufficient time to address the smoking issue and had not interfered with the reasonable supply of heat.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by AgriCorp awarding it compensation under the AgriStability program, arguing that the participation of AgriCorp staff at multiple stages of the decision-making process created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that AgriCorp is essentially a delegate of the Minister exercising executive functions, and the required level of impartiality is that of an 'open mind'.

The court concluded that AgriCorp maintained an open mind and that the staff's involvement did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of several decisions relating to his 2003 dismissal from the Ministry of Environment, including decisions by the OLRB, the Grievance Settlement Board, and a Superior Court judge who dismissed his civil action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Superior Court's final order, which belongs in the Court of Appeal.

The Court also held that setting aside a private settlement agreement is not the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review, and that the OLRB decisions were both out of time for review and reasonable.

The application was deemed an abuse of process.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a 24-hour shift schedule for its suppression firefighters for a two-year trial period.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the award.

The court found that the Arbitration Board reasonably relied on the principles of comparability and replication, noting that the vast majority of firefighters in Ontario work 24-hour shifts.

The Board also reasonably discounted the municipality's concerns regarding health, safety, and operational risks, as well as the expert evidence presented.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant contractor's construction lien expired after it failed to set the action down for trial within two years.

The respondent owner brought a motion without notice under section 46 of the Construction Lien Act, resulting in the dismissal of the entire action, including the appellant's breach of contract claims.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the lien claims were properly dismissed, the contract claims should not have been summarily dismissed without notice.

The court varied the order to allow the breach of contract claims to proceed, noting that the Act does not mandate the dismissal of non-lien claims upon the expiry of a lien.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to appeal an order that dismissed his motion for leave to appeal a trial costs decision.

The central issue was whether the motion judge applied the wrong legal test by finding no strong grounds that the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion regarding a last-minute offer to settle.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test and confirmed that no strong grounds existed.

The motion for leave to extend the time to appeal was denied.

The appellant landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision awarding the respondent tenant $1,252 for excess rent and filing costs.

The appellants argued that the tenant was deemed to have accepted the rent increases under s. 118 of the Residential Tenancies Act and that the increases were deemed lawful under s. 136 because more than a year had passed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the rent increases were void because the landlords failed to provide the required statutory notice under s. 116, rendering both s. 118 and s. 136 inapplicable.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a Certificate of Assessment and declare Minutes of Settlement void.

He argued that he did not understand the terms of the agreement and lacked independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court heard the matter de novo based on the motion record.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide his own affidavit evidence to support his claim of non est factum, and that independent legal advice is not a strict legal requirement for an agreement to be enforceable.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the respondents' action for delay.

The motion judge had set aside the dismissal because he found the respondents were not given notice of the dismissal proceeding.

On appeal, fresh evidence showed notice was sent but returned because the respondents had moved and failed to update their address with the court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondents could not use their failure to update their address as an excuse, and reinstated the Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to the respondent landlord for breach of commercial leases.

The appellants argued the deputy judge erred in admitting business records, assessing credibility, denying costs to a successful co-defendant, and calculating damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's evidentiary rulings, credibility findings, discretionary costs decision, or damages calculation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision dismissing her appeal of a municipal by-law regarding proposed hospital lands.

The OMB found she lacked standing because she did not make oral or written submissions to City Council when the by-law was considered, as required by s. 34(19) 2 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB's interpretation of the standing requirement was reasonable and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed an order varying an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the assessment officer provided only conclusory reasons for reducing the respondent's hourly rates and had no evidentiary basis for disallowing the cost of two lawyers appearing in court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their summary judgment motion without prejudice and awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The motions judge had dismissed the motion after the defendants attempted to argue the merits of the case, contrary to a prior direction limiting the motion to limitation period and estoppel issues.

The defendants argued they were denied natural justice because the judge refused to release the audio recording of her oral reasons and failed to decide the limitation period issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the motions judge properly intervened when the defendants attempted to ambush the plaintiff.

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the Board Member demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable errors of fact by ignoring a Fire Marshall's email confirming fire code deficiencies.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal raised legitimate questions of law regarding both bias and palpable errors of fact.

The landlord's motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation for alleged injuries from an assault by his building superintendent.

The Board had found the appellant's version of events lacked credibility and reliability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's credibility findings were factual and did not raise a question of law.

The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and section 7 Charter infringements.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the moving party owned the vehicle driven by her uninsured daughter.

The moving party sought summary judgment on the basis that she did not consent to her daughter driving the vehicle.

The motions judge dismissed the summary judgment motion, refusing to admit discovery evidence and declining to apply the summary judgment framework.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the motions judge's evidentiary rulings and concluding it was a matter of general importance to consider whether the motions judge's approach was consistent with the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order staying his action for non-payment of previous costs awards.

The moving party had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal, and then delayed three months before bringing this motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding it utterly without merit and noting the moving party's long delays and failure to pay costs.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $8,000.