ODC 2020

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought judicial review of the respondent City's actions during the expropriation of restrictive covenants in its lease.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness regarding the timing of disclosure and the City's refusal to consent to an adjournment of the Hearing of Necessity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City met its statutory obligations and owed no broader common law duty of procedural fairness at that stage.

The Court also declined to rule on the validity of the expropriation, finding the application premature as the applicant had withdrawn from the statutory hearing process and no final expropriation decision had been made.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims for equalization of net family properties and spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The motions judge had found she was not a spouse due to a foreign annulment.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order dismissed an equalization claim and there was no indication the amount in dispute was $50,000 or less.

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

The applicant sought a full panel review of a case management order.

The court previously raised concerns that the motion was moot because the respondent had already conducted the investigation the applicant originally sought to compel.

The court invoked Rule 2.1.02 and directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the motion should proceed.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order but failed to comply with a procedural order requiring her to perfect the appeal and pay rent arrears.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed, the stay of eviction was lifted, and she was evicted.

She subsequently brought a motion for a full panel review of the procedural order.

The Divisional Court, on its own initiative, dismissed the motion as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.02, finding that the procedural order was spent and any review was moot.

The court also prohibited the tenant from bringing further motions without leave.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for negligent misrepresentation regarding a failing septic system in a real estate transaction.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to apply a 50% discount for betterment.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's admission of expert evidence or assessment of betterment.

The moving party, Aviva Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice O'Brien on September 29, 2020.

The respondent did not appear.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,800.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice L.C. Sheard on April 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,000.

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

The tenant had accumulated over $16,000 in rent arrears and admitted she could not afford the rent.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's appeal grounds did not raise any questions of law and that the appeal was launched solely to delay eviction, constituting an abuse of process.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated July 29, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the parties to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $2,500, left to the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award reinstating an employee who had been dismissed for off-duty conduct.

The employee was charged with domestic assault, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably focused on actual rather than potential reputational harm and failed to properly consider the employee's prior discipline for impaired driving and alcohol consumption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable, as the arbitrator correctly applied the test for off-duty conduct and made factual findings that the conduct did not risk harming the employer's reputation and was not attributable to intoxication.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to strike their jury notices in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices solely due to anticipated delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, without relying on specific evidence regarding the length of the delay or its impact on the parties or the administration of justice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while delay and the pandemic's impact on the administration of justice are valid considerations, striking a jury notice based on a general assertion of delay without specific, localized evidence is arbitrary.

The appeal was granted without prejudice to the plaintiffs renewing the motion with proper evidence.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued he was entitled to withhold rent because the landlord failed to provide its address under s. 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision that the issue was one of mixed fact and law.

The court noted the tenant had lived rent-free for 16 months and owed over $40,000 in arrears.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB ordered eviction based on the tenants' failure to pay their share of utilities, which the LTB found substantially interfered with the landlords' rights.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they complained to the municipality about heating issues.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by failing to consider the tenants' retaliation argument under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act and by failing to consider whether to refuse the eviction on conditions under s. 83(1).

The appeal was granted in part and remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, but mistakenly brought the motion in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

The court summarily dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1.01 because the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction, noting that appeals from the Divisional Court lie to the Court of Appeal with leave.

The court provided guidance to the moving party on how to proceed in the correct court and denied the responding party's request for costs, as the matter was disposed of summarily without requiring assessable costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) dismissing their application for minor variances.

Concurrently, the moving parties sought an internal review of the decision under TLAB's rules, and the TLAB Chair directed that a review of ten of the twelve variances proceed.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal premature, as the administrative decision-making process had not ended.

To prevent fragmentation and misallocation of resources, the court adjourned the motion pending the final determination of the TLAB review process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an insurance company's decision to deny his claim against a school board for failing to recognize his learning disability.

Following a case conference, the court noted that judicial review is only available for exercises of state authority, not decisions by private corporations.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 that it is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the application pending the applicant's written submissions.

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

The court found that the tenant was in substantial rent arrears, had failed to provide corroborating evidence of alleged rent payments, and had not taken steps to order transcripts or perfect the appeal.

The court ordered the stay of the eviction order lifted, allowing the eviction to proceed, but provided the tenant with a timetable to perfect the appeal if he wished to pursue it.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court challenging a $600 bill from the Ministry of Transportation for unpaid parking tickets.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction over parking infractions, which must be contested in traffic court or through the Ministry's internal processes.

After receiving the applicant's response, the court dismissed the application, finding it was brought in the wrong court and failed to disclose a justiciable issue within the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing her application against her employer for alleged disability discrimination.

The Tribunal had found that the employer's actions, including placing the applicant on administrative leave, requesting an independent medical examination, and transferring her to another school, were not discriminatory and did not breach the duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the applicant was improperly seeking to have the court reweigh the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.