ODC 2021

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff requested an extension of time to submit responding materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an extension and dismissed the defendants' motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the original motion for security for costs was dismissed because no statement of defence had been filed, leaving the defendants free to renew their motion once a statement of defence is served and filed.

The court dismissed a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Lemon dated June 22, 2021.

As no costs submissions were received from the parties, no costs were awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,249.78.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to declare a municipal election invalid.

They argued the removal of 1,131 names from the preliminary voters' list constituted an irregularity under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to adduce evidence that any voters were disenfranchised or that the presiding justice erred in concluding no irregularity occurred.

The appellant moved for a stay of a License Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the seizure of its vehicle permits and number plates due to an atrocious safety record.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found the appeal lacked merit, the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured public safety over the appellant's economic interests.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, failed to comply with court directions and timetables regarding her motions for leave to appeal and an appeal.

The court had previously issued notices under Rule 2.1.01 indicating it was considering dismissing the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant did not respond substantively to the notices, instead reiterating demands for appointed counsel or amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the proceedings without costs due to the applicant's ungovernability and failure to comply with directions.

A motion for leave to appeal an injunction refusal was dismissed as moot because the underlying property had already been sold.

The court declined to restrict the applicant's future access to the courts but noted her ungovernable conduct could be considered in future vexatious litigant applications.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the College's Complaints Committee.

The Committee had investigated a patient's complaint regarding inappropriate physical contact and, while unable to determine exactly what occurred, required the physician to be cautioned and complete a remedial program regarding boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate for a screening function and the decision was reasonable based on the physician's own admissions about accepting hugs.

The Court also rejected the argument that publishing a summary of the decision on the public register constituted an unauthorized sanction.

The moving party, XTM, Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice R.A. Lococo dated August 12, 2021.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $20,000.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 payable by the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice M. Koehnen dated August 10, 2021.

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

The moving party, a self-represented injured worker, brought a motion for interim relief and a notice of constitutional question pending a motion to review an order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

He sought interim reinstatement of workers' compensation benefits and the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist him.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether the motion was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

After receiving written submissions, the court dismissed the motion and notice, finding that the request for mandatory interim relief had no strong chance of success given the underlying dismissal for extreme delay, and that the appointment of amicus or state-funded counsel was not justified in this civil matter.

The Applicants sought judicial review of Ontario's Mathematics Proficiency Test (MPT), a standardized test required for teacher certification.

They argued the MPT violated s. 15 of the Charter by having a disproportionate adverse impact on racialized teacher candidates.

The Divisional Court found that the MPT infringed s. 15, as statistical evidence showed significant disparities in success rates for Black and Indigenous candidates.

The Court further held that the infringement could not be justified under s. 1, as the Respondent failed to show the MPT minimally impaired the rights of racialized candidates, given the availability of less impairing alternatives like requiring math courses in Bachelor of Education programs.

The legislative provisions creating the MPT were declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The Ontario Integrity Commissioner brought a motion to quash nine applications for judicial review commenced by Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch sought to challenge decisions made by the Commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 regarding investigations into alleged lobbyist wrongdoing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that Democracy Watch lacked public interest standing because the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue and were not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issues before the courts, as they conflicted with the private interests and statutory privacy protections of the investigated lobbyists.

The appellant appealed a final order that stepped down and terminated her spousal support.

The motion judge had proceeded on the premise that the parties agreed there was a 'catastrophic change in circumstances' and assessed support de novo.

The Divisional Court found this was an error, as the parties vehemently disagreed on what constituted the catastrophic change, and the motion judge failed to use the existing final order as the status quo.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision upholding an order to pay statutory termination and severance pay to a former employee.

The employee had been terminated for off-duty, intoxicated misconduct involving threats to a co-worker.

The employer argued this constituted 'wilful misconduct' exempting the employee from statutory entitlements.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the OLRB's contextual assessment of the misconduct—considering the employee's 14-year tenure, lack of prior discipline, and intoxication—was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following an appeal decision where the appellant was substantially successful, an issue arose regarding the costs of the underlying motion before the Associate Judge.

The appellant sought $18,000 for the motion costs, arguing the issue was inadvertently omitted from the appeal decision.

The respondents argued the parties' agreement on appeal costs encompassed the motion costs.

The court found the agreement did not cover the motion costs and, applying Rule 59.06(1), amended the order to award the appellant $18,000 for the costs of the motion below.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the calculation of relief letter carrier complements under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that absences of relief letter carriers temporarily filling long-term vacancies must be included in the bar chart review process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and prior binding awards was reasonable and made labour relations sense.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in favour of the responding parties in the amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,148.63.