ODC 2021

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to refer his complaint against the Ottawa Police Service for investigation.

The applicant alleged a state-sanctioned conspiracy involving individuals in red cars and claimed the police failed to investigate and were complicit.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under the Police Services Act, concluding it was not in the public interest to investigate given the broad allegations and passage of time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and transparent.

The appellant mother abducted her children and brought them to Canada in violation of a valid divorce order from Nigeria.

The motion judge ordered the children's return to Nigeria.

The mother appealed the decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the evidence fell short of establishing the children would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court ordered the children to be returned within 14 days and awarded costs to the respondent father.

The self-represented applicant failed to serve and file his motion record and factum for two motions for leave to appeal by the deadline set in a case management endorsement.

The respondent brought motions to dismiss the leave motions for delay under Rule 61.13(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court directed the motions to the Registrar to issue orders dismissing the motions for leave to appeal for delay, with costs of $750 per motion awarded to the respondent.

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 to the responding party in the amount of $3,050.08.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decisions of Corthorn J. and Shelston J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Pollak J., which dismissed an earlier order of Master Jolley.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $37,773.07.

The moving party brought motions for an extension of time and leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Because the responding party failed to file costs materials by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $20,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gilmore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party F.K.Y. Investments Ltd. No costs were awarded to the Yeung responding parties as they did not file a factum.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university academic appeal committee decision.

In support of his application, he filed an affidavit containing evidence of events that occurred after the original board decision.

The university brought a motion to strike those portions of the affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the Keeprite principle that judicial review is based on the record before the decision-maker, and finding that the applicant had previously consented to excluding this evidence during the internal appeal processes.

The plaintiffs brought motions for leave to appeal the October 9, 2020 and November 6, 2020 orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motions at $10,000, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision regarding the possibility of a jury trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $5,000, noting that the defendant could renew the motion before the Superior Court of Justice if a jury trial could not proceed in May 2021.

The appellants, beneficiaries of a family trust, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts of the respondent trustee.

They argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, erred in failing to find a conflict of interest when the trustee hired lawyers from his own firm, and awarded unreasonable compensation.

They also sought leave to appeal the full indemnity costs awarded to the trustee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate in context, there was no palpable and overriding error in finding no conflict of interest, the compensation reduction was reasonable, and the costs award properly reflected the public policy of indemnifying trustees for reasonable administration expenses.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside two decisions of a single judge of the Divisional Court that quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and refused to stay the quashing order.

The tenant argued his appeal was based on a denial of procedural rights, not an attempt to game the system.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant's appeal was an abuse of process because he had no defence to the non-payment of rent and was using the proceedings to live rent-free.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The entitlement to costs of the motion was reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, with the quantum fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 28, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $5,000 to the defendants.

The appellant appealed an urgent motion order requiring him to return his three children to their primary residence with the respondent and to pay $3,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found the appeal on the merits to be moot, as the appellant had already complied with the order to return the children.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied, as the motion judge's award of full indemnity costs was reasonable and within her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order confirming that the jurisdiction of an Estate Trustee During Litigation continues during an appeal of the underlying will challenge claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the phrase 'pending the final disposition' in the appointment order clearly encompasses the appellate process.

The court affirmed the long-standing principle that an estate trustee's duties continue until the litigation is finally completed, including any appeals.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.