ODC 2020

The applicant brought a motion to set aside minutes of settlement related to an arbitration award, following a previously dismissed application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court noted concerns regarding its jurisdiction to hear the motion, grant the requested relief, and the lack of factual or legal particulars.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, giving the applicant an opportunity to provide written submissions on why the motion should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The application was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

Case management endorsement setting the timetable and filing directions for two motions for leave to appeal brought by the moving parties.

The motions are to proceed together in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.

The court held a case management teleconference to schedule an application for judicial review.

The hearing was scheduled for November 25, 2020, via ZOOM videoconference.

The court provided detailed directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The respondent indicated it would raise a substantive defence that the matter is not properly before the Divisional Court and should be pursued through an Objection Officer and appealed to a single judge of the Superior Court.

A case management teleconference was held to set the schedule and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of an appraisal award.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 1, 2020, by Zoom videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Deadlines were established for the service of materials, cross-examinations, and factums, along with specific instructions for electronic filing via a drop box.

The court issued a case management endorsement setting the schedule and procedural directions for an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appeal was scheduled to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court via videoconference.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, electronic filing via a drop box, and the use of compendiums.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal from a decision dismissing an appeal of an interlocutory order discharging a certificate of pending litigation.

The court set a timetable for the written motion to proceed before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The moving party also indicated an intention to move for a stay, and the court directed the parties to attempt to agree on interim terms to avoid a stay motion, failing which an urgent case management conference could be arranged.

The moving party husband brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Audet J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit and was an unjustifiable waste of resources.

Costs were awarded to the responding party wife on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a former justice of the peace removed from office for judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment, applied for judicial review of a panel's decision declining to recommend compensation for his legal costs.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness by not having an oral hearing and that the panel's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no requirement for an oral hearing on costs and concluding the panel reasonably weighed factors including the nature of the misconduct and the vexatious conduct of the applicant's counsel during the proceedings.

The child, who was the subject of a high-conflict custody and child protection dispute, ran away and sought assistance from a legal clinic.

The father obtained an urgent motion order restraining the legal clinic and its lawyer from representing or contacting the child.

The legal clinic and the child appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by conflating a child's right to standing in a proceeding with their fundamental right to seek independent legal advice.

The court held that children are entitled to seek legal advice without permission from their parents or the court.

The Medical Officer of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck down a requirement limiting the number of migrant farm workers to three per bunkhouse during their mandatory 14-day COVID-19 self-isolation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB erred in law by applying too high a standard of proof, failing to consider that the directive was a class order, and incorrectly concluding that the three-person limit was arbitrary.

The court restored the original order, emphasizing the precautionary principle and the vulnerability of migrant farm workers.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding parties.

The court directed the Registrar to give the applicant notice that it was considering quashing his Notice of Constitutional Question as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the Notice was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior decision, failed to state a proper basis for a constitutional violation, improperly challenged the Charter itself, and was replete with scandalous, abusive, and racist language.

The Notice was quashed, with leave granted to serve a fresh, proper Notice consistent with the court's directions on civility and legal coherence.

The appellants, an unsuccessful bidder and a dissenting shareholder, sought a stay of an order approving a plan of arrangement by which NordStar Capital LP would acquire Torstar Corporation, pending their appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the appellants failed to establish a serious issue for appeal, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted that the appellants lacked standing, the hearing process was fair, and the board acted reasonably in rejecting the unsolicited offer in light of hard lock-up agreements.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondents $3,000 for a defective used truck with a cracked frame.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence, failing to apply caveat emptor, and piercing the corporate veil to hold him personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that hearsay is admissible in Small Claims Court, caveat emptor did not apply due to implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act, and the appellant failed to adequately disclose he was acting on behalf of a corporation.

The moving party, The Russian Federation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $7,500 payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule the delivery of appeal materials and a case management teleconference.

A case management teleconference was held to provide directions for a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Faieta J. The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including the use of a drop box, hyperlinked factums, and factum compendiums.

This is a case management endorsement for an appeal from a decision of the Small Claims Court.

The court directed the appellant to serve its notice of appeal, which would act as a stay of the judgment pending the appeal.

The parties were directed to agree on a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials or arrange a further case management teleconference.

The court also suggested a possible resolution and offered to convene a settlement conference.

The applicant responded to a Rule 2.1.01 notice, denying that the underlying issues of Crown wardship and adoption had been finally disposed of in prior proceedings.

The court directed the respondent Child and Family Services Review Board and Children's Aid Society to provide copies of decisions finally determining those issues.

The applicant will be given a further opportunity to respond once the decisions are provided, and a previously scheduled case management teleconference was cancelled pending the Rule 2.1.01 process.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.

The court issued case management directions for an upcoming virtual hearing of an application for judicial review before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The endorsement outlines the procedures for the Zoom video conference, attire requirements, and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums via a password-protected drop box.