ODC 2018

The moving party brought a motion before the Divisional Court seeking to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that dismissed his claims against several defendants.

He sought this relief to collect on a $300 judgment against a defunct business.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide evidence satisfying the test for an extension of time.

Furthermore, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the amount in issue was well below the $2,500 threshold for Divisional Court appeals from the Small Claims Court.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion for security for costs against the appellants, who were appealing a merits and sanctions decision that found they orchestrated a massive fraud at Sino-Forest Corporation.

The OSC sought $100,000 in security, arguing the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and the appellants lacked assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court found that while the appeal did not appear vexatious, the grounds of appeal appeared frivolous.

Furthermore, the court found 'other good reason' to order security under Rule 61.06(1)(c) due to the strong findings of fraud and evidence that the appellants had put assets out of reach.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded it was just to order the appellants to post $100,000 as security for costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $24,500 for the sale of furniture.

The appellant argued the transaction was a consignment and that the respondent did not own the property to sell it.

The trial judge found the respondent acted as an agent for an undisclosed principal (his wife's company) and could enforce the contract.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the trial judge erred in raising the unpleaded issue of agency because the parties were represented by paralegals, the finding was an alternative to finding the respondent was an owner.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $23,251.25 for unpaid doors.

The appellant argued the respondent fraudulently misrepresented that it would be in Ontario 'for the long run', inducing the contract.

The trial judge found no misrepresentation, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings.

The court also declined to hear new issues raised by the appellant on appeal, as leave was not sought under Rule 61.08(2).

The applicant brought two proceedings to challenge a $250 costs order made by a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge, after leave to appeal had already been denied.

The applicant sought a review under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act and an application for judicial review.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the applications as an abuse of process.

Despite the applicant's written submissions, the court found that using parallel proceedings to circumvent the denial of leave to appeal from an interlocutory costs award is an abuse of process.

Both applications were summarily dismissed with no costs.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The respondents failed to file a responding factum, which was over four months late.

The Divisional Court clarified that Rule 61.03.1 applies to motions for leave to appeal from an interlocutory order of a Superior Court judge, requiring the responding factum to be filed within 25 days after service of the moving party's record.

The court proceeded without the respondents' materials and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the applicants failed to meet the test under Rule 62.02(4).

The appellant trucking company brought a motion for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate pending appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety record, including multiple out-of-service defects and convictions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured public safety over the appellant's pecuniary interests.

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.

The Hospital respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following the applicant's unsuccessful motion to stay a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board appeal pending a judicial review application.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be stayed.

The court found that the Hospital respondents were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as the applicant's conduct did not warrant such an elevated scale.

Costs were awarded to the Hospital respondents on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $9,780.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The eviction was ordered after the landlord sold the residential unit and the purchasers required it for personal use.

The tenant's appeal automatically stayed the eviction.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal challenged findings of fact and did not raise any extricable questions of law as required by section 201 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the immediate enforcement of the eviction.

The tenant brought a motion in the Divisional Court for an extension of time to appeal a previous Divisional Court order that had quashed her appeals from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, noting that appeals from the Divisional Court lie to the Court of Appeal with leave.

Finding the tenant's conduct—including repeatedly trespassing after eviction and filing false applications with the Board—to be a continuing abuse of process, the court prohibited the tenant from commencing further proceedings in the Superior Court without leave and awarded costs to the landlords.

The appellant employee appealed a summary judgment dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against the respondent employer.

The appellant was terminated without cause after less than six months of employment and claimed he was induced to leave his previous secure job.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the appellant was bound by a clear six-month probation clause in his signed employment offer, which negated any claim of inducement.

The court also found no bad faith, concluding the employer provided a fair opportunity for the appellant to demonstrate his suitability during the probationary period.

The appellants appealed a merits decision and a sanctions decision of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Commission had found that a set of contracts marketed as a tax planning vehicle constituted an 'investment contract' and therefore a 'security' under the Securities Act.

The Commission concluded that the appellants breached the Act by selling these securities without being registered and without filing a prospectus, imposing trading bans, administrative penalties, and costs.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission's application of the test for an investment contract was reasonable and that the sanctions imposed were proportionate and justified.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that set aside the immediate suspension and proposed revocation of the respondent's jockey licence.

The respondent had engaged in aggressive behaviour towards racing officials and caused property damage to another licensee's property after being suspended.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by interpreting 'when acting as a licensee' too narrowly.

The Tribunal failed to consider how the respondent's conduct impacted his relationship with the regulatory agency and his governability as a licensee.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a re-hearing.

The landlords brought a motion to dismiss or quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The Board had ordered eviction after finding the tenant deliberately started a fire at the residential complex.

The tenant filed a notice of appeal but took no further steps to perfect it.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it raised no question of law as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and was devoid of merit.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted and immediate vacant possession was ordered.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that an incident where the respondent was bumped by a car door and subsequently punched in the face constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The parties had agreed to a written preliminary issue hearing based on a specific question.

However, the LAT adjudicator unilaterally restated the issue in the final decision without notifying the parties.

The Divisional Court held that this breached procedural fairness, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to know the case to be met and to present relevant evidence and arguments.

The appeal was allowed, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for the return of $25,000 he alleged was misappropriated by the respondents.

The trial judge found the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that there was no evidence of fraud to extend the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings regarding discoverability and the absence of fraud.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, who had refused to quash the defendant's appeal of an order dismissing a motion to discharge construction liens.

The panel held that the original order dismissing the motion to discharge the liens was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally determine the validity of the liens, which remained an issue for trial.

The motion was granted, the single judge's order was set aside, and the appeal was quashed.

The appellants appealed a Master's order that varied a previous 'last chance' order requiring the respondent to post security for costs.

The previous order stated that if the respondent failed to post security by a specific deadline, the action would be dismissed.

The respondent failed to comply, but the Master subsequently issued a new order extending the deadline and increasing the security amount.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master was functus officio once the original order was issued, entered, and breached, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The Master therefore had no jurisdiction to vary the order or grant a stay.

The appellant brought a motion to transfer his appeal of a summary judgment order to the Court of Appeal, after his process server mistakenly filed the Notice of Appeal in the Divisional Court.

The court applied the Dunnington test under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine whether to transfer the appeal.

Finding that the appeal lacked merit and merely sought to reweigh the motion judge's factual findings without identifying any extricable error of law, the court concluded the appeal was frivolous.

The motion to transfer was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.