ODC 2020

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court set a hearing date of August 6, 2020, by videoconference, and provided detailed directions for the filing of materials, including the use of an electronic drop box, hyperlinked factums, and compendiums.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous and vexatious because the applicant had not exhausted her statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that it was bound to fail in its current form, but did so without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a statutory appeal.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of the application following the denial of a motion for leave to intervene.

The court directed that the application proceed by ZOOM videoconference on July 31, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

A case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court scheduled the appeal to be heard via Zoom videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, factums, and compendiums.

A case management conference was held to schedule and provide directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard by a panel of three judges via ZOOM videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, using an electronic drop box.

The court issued a case management endorsement to schedule an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

The hearing was scheduled to proceed by ZOOM videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, via an electronic drop box.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance over a school principal's search of a classroom laptop.

Two teachers had maintained a private log documenting their complaints about colleagues on a personal Google account accessed via the school computer.

The principal discovered the log when he touched the mousepad of the open laptop after hours.

The arbitrator found the teachers had a diminished expectation of privacy and the principal had reasonable cause to search under his duty to maintain order under the Education Act.

The Divisional Court (majority) dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the application, finding the search disproportionately impaired the teachers' section 8 Charter rights.

Case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for two motions for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motions to proceed by videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim decision regarding temporary custody and access in a high-conflict family law case.

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

The court denied the applicant's request for oral argument, noting that motions for leave to appeal are typically heard in writing and this case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard practice.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding appeals of an interim control by-law restricting cannabis-related land uses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as premature.

The court held that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against fragmenting administrative tribunal proceedings by hearing appeals from interlocutory decisions.

The moving party, former counsel for the applicant, sought leave to intervene as an added party in a judicial review application.

He claimed a pecuniary interest in being paid for his legal services and a reputational interest in defending himself against negative comments made by the hearing panel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's interests were entirely aligned with those of the applicant, who was already advancing the same arguments.

Furthermore, the court held that granting intervention would dramatically expand the issues and record, causing undue delay, and that the motion was brought too late in the proceedings.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule three motions for leave to appeal a decision of Morgan J. The Divisional Court set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials and directed that the motions proceed in writing before a single panel.

The court also provided detailed instructions for the creation of an electronic drop box, the formatting of electronic documents, and the filing of factums and compendiums in light of the COVID-19 suspension of ordinary court operations.

The appellant, Enbridge Gas Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board setting April 1, 2019, as the effective date for a natural gas rate increase, arguing the date should have been January 1, 2019.

The appellant contended the OEB failed to ensure rates were just and reasonable at all times and relied on irrelevant considerations, such as the timing of the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the OEB made no error of law and properly exercised its broad discretion to set just and reasonable rates by considering the timing of the application and the impact of retroactive rate changes on consumers.

The appellant appealed a family court order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the relief appealed from was granted under the Divorce Act, meaning jurisdiction properly lay with the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal under s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

A case management teleconference was held to set the timetable and procedure for the moving party's motion for leave to appeal.

The court directed that the motion be heard in writing by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court and established deadlines for serving materials and uploading them to an electronic drop box.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to grant interim statutory accident benefits.

Before the appeal could be heard, the appellant's underlying claim was settled, rendering the appeal moot.

The appellant argued the court should still hear the appeal because the issue was evasive of review and of public importance.

Applying the Borowski factors, the Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding that the issue was not evasive of review and that a future, non-moot case would provide a better factual foundation.

The appeal was dismissed.

A case management conference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal an order regarding capacity and representation issues.

The court noted delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the self-represented status of two respondents.

The court set a timetable for the filing of materials and directed that the motion for leave to appeal proceed in writing.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent and moved for an interim stay.

The respondent indicated it would oppose the stay and move to quash the application for prematurity.

A case management conference was held to set a timetable for the exchange of materials and to schedule the motions to be heard together by videoconference.

The respondent in an appeal sought costs under Rule 37.09, arguing that the appellants had abandoned their motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellants' representative had stated in multiple emails that the motion was withdrawn, but no formal notice of abandonment was ever served or filed.

The court held that stating an intention to abandon a motion, or even claiming it has been abandoned, does not constitute abandonment under Rule 37.09(1) without serving and filing a formal notice.

The court found the motion was not abandoned and reserved the costs of this motion to the court hearing the stay motion.

A case management conference was held to schedule an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision involving defamation.

The court noted the appeal had been outstanding for over a year and the respondent was 85 years old, necessitating no further delay.

The court scheduled a one-day virtual hearing via Zoom and provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and compendiums.