ODC 2021

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a custody and access order.

The appellant failed to appear at the case management conference and the motion hearings, and sent an email stating she was abandoning her appeal but failed to file a Notice of Abandonment.

The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting it would have also been dismissed for delay due to the appellant's failure to order transcripts.

Costs of the motion and appeal were awarded to the moving party.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for delay.

The tenant failed to appear at the videoconference hearing despite being contacted by the Registrar and provided with dial-in information.

The court proceeded in the tenant's absence, lifted the stay of the eviction order, and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the landlord.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay $1,200 per month in spousal support following his retirement.

He argued the motion judge erred by providing insufficient reasons, miscalculating incomes, allowing 'double dipping' from his previously equalized pension, and ordering support indefinitely.

The Divisional Court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the exceptions to the rule against double dipping.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to add a provision allowing either party to apply to vary the order when the respondent begins drawing her pension.

The appellant, a 69-year-old legal assistant, was terminated without cause after 15 years of service.

A motions judge awarded her a 12-month notice period, subject to a 10% contingency reduction for the final two months.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, seeking a 24-month notice period and arguing the motions judge erred in applying the Bardal factors and the contingency reduction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle, no unreasonable findings of fact, and that the notice period fell within an acceptable range.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that denied the tenant's motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to attend the Board hearing and alleged improper service as the ground for appeal.

The Divisional Court found no merit to the tenant's allegations of improper service, noting the Board's finding that notice was properly served.

The court concluded the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Master's decision denying them leave to amend their statement of claim and prohibiting the father from acting as agent for his adult son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly concluded that the proposed amendments lacked material facts, failed to properly plead conspiracy, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court also upheld the Master's rulings on the respondents' cross-motions and her refusal to address an unpleaded conflict of interest allegation against opposing counsel.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for $25,000 in damages plus costs for breaching a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the respondent real estate brokerage.

The appellants argued the trial judge made several factual and legal errors, including finding the BRA enforceable despite their claim that it was not adequately explained.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants understood the BRA, deliberately bypassed the respondent to avoid paying commission, and engaged in unreasonable conduct warranting elevated costs.

The self-represented moving party, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion in the Divisional Court for leave to appeal pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, as section 140(3) explicitly requires such applications to be brought in the Superior Court of Justice.

The moving party was also cautioned against communicating with the court without copying opposing counsel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against PayPal.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, place of residence, and citizenship after PayPal refused to issue him a cheque in US dollars upon closing his Canadian account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the essence of the complaint was based on residence, which is not an enumerated ground under the Human Rights Code.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The appellant tenant failed to appear at the peremptory hearing and failed to pay the monthly rent as required by the conditions of a previous adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent landlord.

The applicants, commercial real estate developers, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Council to deny their applications for property tax rebate grants under a community improvement plan by-law.

The applicants argued that because their projects met the threshold eligibility criteria, the City was required to approve the grants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the by-law and governing legislation conferred broad discretion on the Council to consider other factors, including whether the grants were economically necessary for the projects to proceed.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded costs to the City.

The applicant, a unionized employee, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that settled his human rights grievance for $31,000, an amount he argued was inadequate.

The respondent union, supported by the employer, brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to an allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant lacked standing to seek judicial review of the arbitration award, as he did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting individual employee standing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of MacEachern J. dated November 20, 2020, and Audet J. dated December 2, 2020.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award determining the actual cash value of a resort property destroyed by fire.

The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the depreciation rate, which it claimed the parties had already agreed upon, and breached procedural fairness by not adjourning the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision reasonable as the depreciation rate was clearly in dispute based on the appraisal briefs.

The court also held that the informal appraisal process under section 128 of the Insurance Act was conducted fairly and the respondent's appraiser owed no duty of procedural fairness to the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a resolution by the City of Brantford to sell a municipal golf course to fund affordable housing.

The applicant argued the City breached its procedural by-law, failed to notify First Nations under an agreement, and that councillors had a disqualifying bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural error, that the applicant lacked standing to raise the First Nations notice issue, and that the high threshold for establishing a closed mind by municipal councillors was not met.

The application was also dismissed due to a seven-month delay in bringing the proceeding.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding that it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee without cause.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and failed to address inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding whether the employee had resigned.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, properly relied on documentary evidence (termination letter and Record of Employment), and contained no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order regarding custody and mobility made under the Divorce Act.

The Divisional Court noted that appeals of final orders under the Divorce Act must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

With the consent of the parties and due to urgency, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party abandoned his motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $200 to the responding party forthwith.

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

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

The moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.