ODC 2020

The moving party, a non-party to the underlying action, sought leave to appeal a costs order made against him by the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the question of whether the trial judge erred in ordering costs payable by a non-party.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellant purchased an electric vehicle and later discovered its range was significantly lower than advertised.

He communicated with the respondents for months before discovering they had secretly lowered the advertised range on their website.

The Small Claims Court dismissed his misrepresentation claim on summary judgment, finding it was statute-barred.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the Deputy Judge failed to apply the proper test for summary judgment and that the date of discoverability and potential tolling of the limitation period due to the respondents' conduct were triable issues.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the respondent tenants did not appear.

The court noted that the respondents' counsel had been removed from the record by a prior order, which was not in the court file, and the respondents had vacated the rental unit without leaving a forwarding address.

As there was no evidence that the respondents had been advised of the hearing date, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal to a date to be set by the Registrar.

The moving party mother sought a stay of a final order placing her two children in extended society care, as well as a temporary access order pending her appeal.

She requested increased access and joint decision-making regarding religious participation and schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to meet the test for a stay pending appeal and that an increase in access was not in the children's best interests given the statutory framework for extended society care and the children's current circumstances.

The County sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the applicants' abandoned leave to appeal motion regarding the production of records from closed municipal meetings.

The applicants' appeal became moot after closed meeting investigators concluded the meetings were improperly closed, leading the County to release the records.

Although the court found the leave motion would likely have been unsuccessful, it exercised its discretion under Rule 37.09(3) to order no costs due to the County's actions in improperly closing the meetings.

A case management conference was held to address the self-represented moving party's failure to comply with oral directions given at a prior conference.

The court declined to inquire into her bona fides for missing the deadline and instead imposed a revised schedule for her motions for leave to appeal and to extend the time for leave to appeal.

The court also provided directions regarding the potential introduction of fresh evidence and the responding party's concerns about solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant sought to review a case management judge's order that vacated a hearing date for her application to compel the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate her complaint.

The hearing date had been vacated because the applicant failed to serve materials and the College had already released its decision, rendering the application moot.

The court found the applicant's motion to review the order appeared to be without purpose and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to explain why her motion should not be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant insurer appealed a tribunal reconsideration decision that found its counsel was in a conflict of interest for acting in both a priority dispute and a benefits dispute against the same insured.

The tribunal also excluded examination under oath transcripts obtained in the priority dispute from being used in the benefits dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal's findings on conflict of interest and the circumvention of procedural protections under section 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule were reasonable.

A lawyer sought leave to intervene in an appeal of a costs decision that made adverse findings against him regarding his duty to the court and ordered his former client to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The underlying action had settled, rendering the appeal moot.

The court granted the lawyer leave to intervene, finding he had an interest in protecting his professional integrity, especially since his former client was relying on the costs decision in a separate collection action for legal fees.

The court also exercised its discretion to depart from the doctrine of mootness, finding that the issues regarding a lawyer's duty to the court and the costs consequences for a client were of public importance and could otherwise evade review.

The appeal was allowed to proceed on limited issues with amicus curiae appointed to argue the opposing position.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Baltman J. dated November 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,222.67.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 awarded to the successful party on the appeal.

The parties were directed to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

In a case management endorsement, the court provided procedural directions to a self-represented applicant regarding disputes over the accuracy of transcripts and the Record of Proceedings.

The court ordered the applicant to prepare detailed lists of alleged errors and proposed corrections, and directed the respondents to reply to those lists.

The court noted that the intense case management required by the self-represented applicant's lack of trust in the respondents would inevitably cause delays.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order approving the forms of release proposed by the respondents to finalize an estate settlement.

The parties had previously reached a settlement agreement regarding the distribution of the estate, but could not agree on the terms of the releases.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors and correctly applied the principle that settlement implies a promise to furnish a release.

The court also denied leave to appeal the costs order, noting it was made on consent, and awarded the respondents $5,000 in costs for the appeal.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an application against the Ontario Ombudsman without obtaining prior leave from a judge, in breach of a court order.

At a show cause hearing, the applicant argued the prior order was illegal and that a letter he sent to the judge constituted a good faith request for leave.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, finding the applicant in contempt of court.

The court imposed further restrictions requiring the applicant to obtain permission from a Case Management Judge before even seeking leave to commence future proceedings, and adjourned sentencing.

The appellant physiotherapist appealed an 18-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for practicing without professional liability insurance and misleading the College.

This was the appellant's third disciplinary proceeding involving dishonesty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was not demonstrably unfit or clearly excessive given the exceptional circumstances, repeated instances of dishonesty, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a hearing panel's order that she pay $150,000 in costs for a discipline proceeding.

The lawyer had entered into a settlement agreement where the Law Society agreed to forgo costs in exchange for her not contesting deemed admissions of professional misconduct.

However, the lawyer subsequently attempted to rescind the agreement and moved to withdraw her admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lawyer's actions constituted a repudiation of the settlement agreement, which deprived the Law Society of the substantial benefit of its bargain and relieved it of its obligation to forgo costs.