ODC 2021

Following a prior endorsement approving a Sheriff's sale of property, the court issued this endorsement to correct a typographical error in the entered order and to determine costs.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably in defending the enforcement proceedings and awarded elevated costs to the moving party.

Costs were fixed at $37,500, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale before applying the net proceeds to the outstanding judgment debts.

The applicant sought an interim publication ban pending a motion for a full publication ban.

The court granted the interim ban to preserve the applicant's ability to argue the privacy and security interests of her family, finding that the salutary effects outweighed any minimal deleterious effects on the media.

The applicant was directed to notify the media of the pending motion in accordance with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction.

The respondent was successful on an appeal from the Small Claims Court and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant disputed the time spent by the respondent's counsel but failed to provide its own bill of costs for comparison.

The court held that absent a bill of costs from the losing party, an attack on the successful party's fees is merely an 'attack in the air'.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $9,813.26, finding the amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate to Small Claims Court litigation.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside minutes of settlement reached in a labour arbitration, attempting to file it under a previously quashed application for judicial review.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction.

After reviewing the moving party's written submissions, the court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the requested relief was not available in the Divisional Court and there was no active proceeding in which to bring the motion.

The appellant landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the respondents' tenancies of two cottages for his children's use.

The respondents claimed they owned the cottages and only leased the land.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to decide the ownership issue, found that the respondents owned the cottages, and dismissed the eviction applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act, did not breach procedural fairness, and correctly concluded that the Act superseded the common law of fixtures.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions dismissing his human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO found that the substance of his allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration, even though the union declined to advance Code-based arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's application of s. 45.1 was reasonable, as the arbitrator's factual findings precluded any finding of Code violations.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness denial and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding the interpretation of early retirement and voluntary exit provisions in a collective agreement.

The arbitration panel found that the benefits must be offered to all employees within a classification based on seniority, rejecting the hospital's past practice of offering them strictly on a full-time to full-time and part-time to part-time basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the panel's interpretation of the collective agreement and its treatment of past practice evidence were reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by a Master.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

The applicant Receiver sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer under the Labour Relations Act.

The Receiver had been operating an insolvent debtor's retirement home business for several years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable that the Receiver met the test for a successor employer.

The Court also agreed that section 14.06(1.2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not immunize a receiver from prospective collective bargaining obligations, but only from pre-appointment liabilities.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding him a related employer to his defunct company, binding him to current collective agreements, and imposing a fine for breach.

The applicant had operated a unionized masonry company until a 2007 car accident left him unable to work, leading to personal bankruptcy and the company's dissolution.

Ten years later, he resumed work as a sole proprietor.

The Divisional Court quashed the OLRB decisions, finding it unreasonable that the Board failed to consider whether a related employer declaration served a valid labour relations purpose given the decade-long hiatus and the applicant's circumstances.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to disclose certain information.

He had also brought a separate motion before the motion judge to correct a mistake in the same order pursuant to rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that the leave to appeal motion was premature and adjourned it until the motion to correct the order was decided and finalized.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of a Master.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Henderson J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs were requested, no costs were ordered.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

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 appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed an interim ruling of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding its jurisdiction to hear complaints about overpayment calculations from 2010 and prior years.

The Director raised a threshold issue of prematurity, arguing that appeals to the Divisional Court under s. 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act are only permitted from final decisions.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the administrative law doctrine of prematurity applies to prevent fragmentation and delay, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim, arguing the new claims were statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, clarifying that because the motions judge did not finally dispose of the limitations defence, the order was interlocutory.

The defendants remain free to plead the limitations defence in response to the amended claim at trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to void a lease in the context of an oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of s. 249 of the Act, or alternatively, whether the underlying order was final and therefore appealable to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants had not paid rent for over a year, causing the landlord severe financial hardship.

The tenants appealed the eviction order to the Divisional Court, triggering an automatic stay, and concurrently sought a review before the LTB.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal on three grounds: it was premature because the LTB review was ongoing; it was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no question of law; and it was an abuse of process designed solely to delay eviction and extend a rent-free tenancy.

The automatic stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The applicant, a physician, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On preliminary motions, the applicant sought to introduce additional evidence consisting of a summary of the underlying committee decision posted on the College's website.

The Board sought to add the complainant as a party and to seal portions of the record containing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted all motions, allowing the additional evidence as context for the judicial review, adding the complainant as a necessary party, and sealing the conduct profile to maintain the integrity of the Board's process.