ODC 2020

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

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal due to substantial rent arrears.

Prior to the hearing, the tenant withdrew his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, lifted the stay of the eviction order, and fixed outstanding rent at $10,710.17.

The court also added the new purchaser of the property as a respondent landlord to ensure vacant possession could be enforced.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed from orders varying temporary child and spousal support, which had been mistakenly issued by the Registrar as final orders.

The Divisional Court set aside the final orders and directed they be reissued as temporary orders nunc pro tunc.

Although leave to appeal the interlocutory orders was required and would not have been granted, the court heard the appeal on the merits.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence regarding the date of separation due to a lack of due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in her support determinations.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Gilmore J. dated May 19, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, inclusive, payable forthwith.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of J. Wilson J. dated August 5, 2020.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable to the responding insurance company.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,349.23.

The appellant, a lawyer disbarred in Florida and Illinois for exploiting elderly clients, appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding his disbarment in Ontario.

The Law Society relied on the foreign disciplinary decisions, arguing they should be recognized and given preclusive effect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Panel correctly applied the test for recognizing foreign judgments and issue estoppel, and that the appellant's arguments constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Florida proceedings.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a family law motion regarding school choice.

The court applied the Enbridge test and found that the moving party failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, did not adequately explain the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also noted significant prejudice to the responding party.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated January 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $2,750 to the responding party.

The moving party solicitor brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is available against collectors and custodians of private information when that information is improperly accessed by a third party, even if the defendants allegedly acted recklessly.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $11,300, left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Bielby J. dated September 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $4,968.21 to the responding parties.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an earlier eviction order.

The tenant had already been evicted and the unit re-rented to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that even if successful, the Board had no jurisdiction to restore possession of the unit or force the landlord to provide a comparable unit, meaning a successful appeal would have no practical effect.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to amend their statement of defence to plead section 8 of the Interest Act.

The appellants argued they had a right to amend as a matter of law because the respondents had amended their claim, and that statutory defences do not need to be pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that affirmative and statutory defences must be pleaded to avoid trial by ambush.

The Court also upheld the Master's finding that the appellants' unexplained four-year delay in raising the defence resulted in presumed and actual non-compensable prejudice to the respondents, who lost opportunities to strategize and settle.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from decisions directing that a trial on mobility and residential schedule commence shortly.

After being granted one extension of time to file her materials, the moving party requested a further extension.

The Divisional Court denied the further extension, noting the imminent trial date and lack of evidence supporting the need for an extension.

Based on the detailed notice of motion already filed, the court concluded the proposed appeal did not meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario regulation that discontinued the reimbursement of out-of-country medical expenses under the provincial health insurance plan.

The Divisional Court found that the regulation clearly violated the portability criterion of the Canada Health Act, which would disqualify Ontario from receiving a full federal cash contribution.

Because the Health Insurance Act explicitly prohibits the Lieutenant Governor in Council from making regulations that would cause such disqualification, the impugned regulation was declared ultra vires.

The applicants' Charter challenges under sections 7 and 15 were dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order termination and severance pay against a related company and corporate directors following the employer's bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that he lacked jurisdiction to make orders against entities and individuals who were not parties to the collective agreement, noting that the related company was not a party and the Business Corporations Act requires a civil action to hold directors liable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party, self-represented, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order granting the responding party control over the sale of the matrimonial home.

During a case management teleconference, the court set a timetable for the exchange of materials for the leave to appeal motion.

The court denied the moving party's request for an oral hearing, directing that the motion for leave to appeal proceed in writing before a panel of three judges, in accordance with standard practice.

A case management endorsement scheduling a motion for leave to appeal from a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision.

The court set the hearing date for October 26, 2020, by Zoom videoconference, and established deadlines for the service and filing of motion materials.