ODC 2021

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $4,625.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, an unauthorized occupant of a rental unit, appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that it was devoid of merit and raised no question of law under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was not a tenant under the Act and that his grounds of appeal raised questions of fact or mixed fact and law, with no evidence to support his claims of Charter or Human Rights Code breaches.

The court concluded the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and quashed it pursuant to s. 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The appellants appealed an order directing an election for a new common board of directors for two related not-for-profit corporations and ordering the delivery of keys to a shared property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge had jurisdiction under the Corporations Act to order the election, did not breach procedural fairness, provided adequate reasons, and awarded reasonable costs.

The moving party sought a stay pending appeal of a final decision ordering the return of the parties' daughter to Nigeria.

The court applied the RJR Macdonald test, finding that while the appeal was weak, it was not frivolous.

The court concluded that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if her appeal rights were frustrated by the child's return, and that the balance of convenience was evenly split.

The stay was granted, and an expedited appeal schedule was ordered to minimize prejudice to the responding party.