ODC 2021

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs award.

The motion was heard in writing and dismissed without costs.

The appellants appealed an urgent Commercial Court order that set a date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting, appointed an independent chair, and restrained directors opposing the requisition from voting shares issued to them after the requisition date.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to make an explicit finding of impropriety regarding the share issuance and failed to apply the business judgment rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's reasons were sufficient when read in context, as they clearly demonstrated concern that the shares were issued to dilute the requisitioning shareholders' voting power.

The court also held the application judge properly declined to apply the business judgment rule, as the directors' actions were not in the best interests of the company.

The applicants sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying them intervener status in a labour grievance between a union and an employer regarding alleged subcontracting violations.

The applicants argued the grievance would adversely affect their ability to work and supply workers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the applicants lacked a direct and legal interest in the private dispute resolution process between the union and the employer.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he sexually abused a patient and engaged in professional misconduct towards three nurses, resulting in the revocation of his certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the Committee applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred in imposing revocation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were fair, well-reasoned, and entitled to deference.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, noting it was within the reasonable range for sexual misconduct, especially given the appellant's prior history of boundary violations and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by applying the 'Clergy principle' to allow the respondent's planning applications to be assessed under the policy regime in place when they were originally filed in 1990.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Clergy principle is a procedural policy choice within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, not a legal principle subject to appeal on a question of law.

The Court also found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 17, 2020, and to stay an order dated February 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a temporary order dealing with parenting time and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred by denying an adjournment, failing to consider the best interests of the children, and ignoring child support arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion given the appellant's history of delay.

The court also found the motions judge properly considered the children's best interests and the respondent's sobriety, and appropriately ordered the sale of the home due to the appellant's interference.

The applicant brought an application which was heard on an expedited schedule.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application with no order as to costs, noting that full reasons would follow in due course.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Region's decision denying her special priority status on the subsidized housing waitlist.

The applicant, a live-in caregiver, was abused by her employer and argued she was financially dependent on him.

The Region determined that an employer-employee relationship did not constitute financial dependency under the Housing Services Act and its regulations, which are intended to assist victims of domestic abuse in familial relationships.

The Divisional Court found the Region's interpretation reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) upholding the Director's proposal to refuse to renew its residential care licence.

The LAT had excluded the appellant's proposed expert evidence regarding fire safety and the standard of care for treatment foster homes, citing efficiency and lack of necessity.

The Divisional Court found that the excluded evidence was central to the case and clearly relevant, and that its exclusion amounted to a palpable and overriding error that prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed, the LAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The applicant sought judicial review and broad declaratory relief against Ontario, arguing that the province failed to ensure the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to vulnerable populations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because the requested declarations did not relate to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed exercise of a specific statutory power.

The court noted that while the applicant raised important issues regarding vaccine equity, the broad, abstract relief sought was not properly before the court.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision requiring it to fund the respondent's catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessment under s. 25(1)5 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued it was only required to pay for an assessment completed before the insured submitted their application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the preparation of an application does not cease once the formal document is submitted, and the insurer must fund any assessment necessary for determining whether the impairment is catastrophic.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to a 15-month delay.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by imposing page limits, was biased, rendered an unreasonable decision, and violated his s. 15 Charter rights by applying a presumption of prejudice for delayed complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedural directions fair, the delay analysis reasonable, and the Charter claim unfounded as the presumption applies equally to all parties and does not discriminate on analogous grounds.

The defendants appealed a motions judge's decision refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution on a summary judgment motion.

The claims arose after the plaintiff was acquitted of sexual assault charges, with the trial judge finding the complainant lacked credibility on collateral issues.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in equating the trial judge's adverse credibility findings on collateral issues with 'overwhelming evidence' that would vitiate the police's reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and prosecution.

The remaining claims were dismissed.

The moving party, an insurance company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decisions of the motion judge dated January 4, 2021, and January 21, 2021.

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

The parties were directed to contact the court to schedule a case conference.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $1,800.

The moving party, BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by a single judge of the Divisional Court who had determined an appeal from the Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, noting that under the Courts of Justice Act, leave to appeal such an order must be sought from the Court of Appeal.

No costs were awarded as neither party raised the jurisdictional issue.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding parties in the agreed amount of $10,000.