ODC 2020

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him a certificate of registration as a psychologist.

He brought a motion for a fee waiver under the Financial Administration Act to cover the costs of hearing transcripts.

The case management judge found the motion appeared doomed to fail as the issue had already been decided by another judge, and the applicant refused to engage constructively.

The court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.02 that the court was considering dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

During a case management teleconference for a motion for leave to appeal, the responding party objected to the inclusion of a previously disallowed affidavit and email communications in the moving party's materials.

The court ruled that the disallowed affidavit could remain in the record solely to assess the motions judge's decision to strike it, but not for the truth of its contents.

However, the court struck out the email communications because they were not before the motions judge and raised a challenge not previously raised.

The potential applicants intend to seek judicial review of any permit issued by the Minister of the Environment allowing the Town of Sauble Beach to carry out works that could destroy sensitive plover habitat.

During a case management teleconference, the court directed the parties to behave reasonably and attempt to agree on terms for a potential stay and an expedited application process.

The court established that it would expedite any necessary stay motion and provided instructions for arranging an emergency case management conference if interim terms could not be agreed upon.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had dismissed the original allegations of sexual abuse but found professional misconduct based on the physician's failure to respect the patient's privacy during an examination.

The College conceded that this finding was procedurally unfair because the privacy issue was not raised in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal on consent and quashed the liability and penalty decisions.

A case management teleconference was held to set a return date and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment.

The court scheduled a one-day ZOOM videoconference hearing for August 20, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic exchange of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box and hyperlinked factums.

The self-represented moving party sought an urgent motion to compel the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate a complaint against a physician.

The court advised her that the motion was improperly framed as there was no subsisting proceeding, and scheduled a case management conference to explore regularizing the matter.

The moving party refused to attend the conference and indicated she wished to withdraw her motion.

The court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs and directed that any future matters involving the moving party be subject to case management.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a final order.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and set out a timetable for the exchange of materials, including the establishment of an electronic drop box for document sharing.

A case management conference was held to address an issue regarding whether the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board had been settled.

The court directed the parties to exchange materials on the settlement issue and place them before the panel scheduled to hear the appeal.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that upheld a zoning by-law amendment permitting a Supervised Consumption Facility.

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the amendment conformed to the 1989 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding the proposed appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, and the issue was not of sufficient general or public importance.

A case management conference was held to schedule a review of a single judge's decision denying a proposed intervener's motion for leave to intervene as a party.

The parties agreed that the review would be heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court, and a schedule for the exchange of materials was established.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.

The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order awarding the respondent spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for both quantum and duration, as well as a payment for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not deducting the respondent's Ontario Disability Support Program benefits from the spousal support calculation and by finding an inability to work without independent expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the support award and upholding the trial judge's application of the joint family venture framework to the unjust enrichment claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding her complaints against her former employer and benefits provider.

The applicant named only the HRTO as a respondent.

At a case management conference, the court directed the applicant to amend her application to name the respondents from the underlying HRTO proceedings, as they have an interest in the outcome of the application.

The court provided directions for service of the amended application.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that denied their claim for over $1.2 million in costs following a lengthy proceeding.

The underlying application concerned a nuisance claim against a greenhouse and anaerobic digester operated by a court-appointed receiver.

The Board had found that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct and declined to award costs to either side.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Board's discretionary costs decision.

A case management endorsement scheduling an appeal from a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The appeal concerns a discipline panel's decision to reject a joint submission on penalty and impose a higher penalty.

The College does not oppose the appeal.

The court provided procedural directions for a ZOOM videoconference hearing, including the filing of electronic materials and costs submissions.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order that directed estate funds to be paid out of court and removed an estate trustee.

The appellant sought directions and an accounting, effectively attempting to secure funds for a counterclaim against the estate.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding the original motion was improperly brought and the appellant had not established the prerequisites for a Mareva injunction to hold the funds as security.

The court issued procedural directions in an appeal following unsuccessful attempts to schedule a remote case management conference due to the self-represented appellant's technological and accommodation challenges.

The court ordered the parties to proceed in writing, setting strict deadlines for the appellant to serve her appeal record and any requests to introduce fresh evidence, emphasizing that appeals are not a retrial of the original case.

A case management conference was held to schedule two motions for leave to appeal a decision appointing carriage counsel in a class action.

The court established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, directed the creation of a joint record and electronic drop box, and ordered that the motions proceed in writing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Dow J. dated March 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 for the stay motion and $5,000 for the motion for leave to appeal to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Skarica J. dated February 4, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving parties.