ODC 2021

The moving party sought to schedule a motion for contempt against her former landlord, alleging he breached a 2019 stay certificate.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting the moving party had vacated the unit over two years prior and had commenced a civil action raising the same issues.

The court stayed the motion and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01, giving the moving party an opportunity to provide written submissions explaining why the motion should not be dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for breach of contract regarding the restoration of a 1986 Ford Bronco and granting the respondent's counterclaim for the balance of the contract price.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the vehicle was to be made drivable and improperly admitted an expert report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were grounded in the evidence and noting the appellant himself had introduced the expert report at trial without challenging the expert's qualifications.

The respondent requested an urgent case conference to seek a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision, or alternatively, to lift the stay of the decision.

The court scheduled the case conference and provided a virtual link.

The appellant attended, but the respondent failed to appear.

The court noted the scarcity of court time and directed that if the respondent wishes to request another appointment, he must explain his failure to attend.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a mortgage commitment's interest rate provision breached section 8 of the Interest Act.

The provision increased the interest rate from 8.25% to 18% in the final month of the term unless the mortgage was renewed or discharged.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the interest rate increase was triggered by the passage of time rather than default, and therefore did not violate the Interest Act.

The appellant was awarded judgment reflecting the 18% interest rate for the final month and thereafter, along with costs.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding the revocation of his license and a costs award for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included charging grossly excessive fees, failing to comply with court orders to reimburse his client, and rendering false accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Law Society had parallel jurisdiction with the courts to review retainer agreements and find professional misconduct for breaching court orders.

The court upheld the penalty of revocation, noting the appellant's dishonesty and fundamental disrespect for his obligations as a lawyer.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was entitled to statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident.

The respondent had purchased the motorcycle the day before the accident but had not yet notified the insurer, who insured his other vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a motorcycle is a 'motor vehicle' required to be insured, and therefore an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act.

Consequently, the motorcycle qualified as a 'newly acquired automobile' under section 2.2.1 of the standard Ontario Automobile Policy, which provides automatic coverage for a 14-day grace period regardless of the insurer's internal policy against insuring motorcycles.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge dated March 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding receiver in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party, Watts Water Technologies Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sanderson J. dated March 16, 2021.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Kiteley J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the corporate respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000, while no costs were awarded to the individual respondent as no costs outline was filed.

The applicant, a medical student, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Academic Appeals Committee upholding findings of professionalism lapses.

The applicant argued that the initial process before the Board of Examiners was procedurally unfair due to insufficient notice and undisclosed allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial process was flawed, the subsequent appeals before the Faculty of Medicine Appeals Committee and the Academic Appeals Committee were conducted as de novo hearings that cured any procedural defects.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 10, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The plaintiff brought an action for copyright infringement against several foreign corporate entities, alleging their animated film infringed his copyright in a short film of the same name.

The Master stayed the action against six defendants for lack of jurisdiction but allowed it to proceed against three others.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Master erred by failing to consider the evidence and misapplying the test for carrying on business.

Applying the real and substantial connection test, the Court held that Ontario has jurisdiction over all defendants except two, as there was a good arguable case that the other defendants committed copyright infringement in Ontario or the claim was in respect of property in Ontario.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred regarding service of the claim, full and frank disclosure, and the application of the test for setting aside default judgments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service was properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the appellants failed to establish a plausible excuse for not defending the claim or an air of reality to any defence on the merits.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $20,000 in liquidated damages for the alleged breach of a non-export clause in a vehicle sales agreement.

The trial judge found the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle had been exported.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including his decision to give little weight to an untested written statement from the manufacturer.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction on the basis that the landlord sold the rental unit to her brother, who required it for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by curtailing his cross-examination and refusing to compel the unredacted agreement of purchase and sale.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the Board had discretion to control its process, it erred in law by precluding the tenant from testing critical evidence regarding the bona fides of the sale transaction, specifically the purchase price and payment terms.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing.

Following a successful appeal that increased the father's parenting time, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the parenting schedule for the summer of 2021.

The mother opposed the father's request for time, citing the children's enrollment in summer camps and a planned trip.

The court found the mother's attitude concerning and ordered a schedule that provided the father with three weeks of parenting time, requiring the cancellation of some recently booked camps to prioritize the children's time with their father.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,350.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a February 17, 2021 decision regarding interim spousal support.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on three specific issues: whether the motion judge erred by ordering a net amount of spousal support contrary to the Income Tax Act, whether a material change in circumstances was required to vary an interim without prejudice order, and whether the motion judge relied on irrelevant considerations or made palpable and overriding errors in determining the temporary spousal support amount.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a physician whose licence was revoked.

The physician sought to challenge the Discipline Committee's revocation decisions and an earlier interim suspension by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the physician had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal for the revocation decisions.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the interim suspension due to excessive delay of over two years and because the issue was moot following the licence revocation.