ODC 2021

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Robert Smith dated July 7, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the responding party was awarded costs fixed at $2,000.

The appellants appealed a small claims court decision ordering them to pay $5,628.41 for damage to a rental car provided to the appellant driver as a temporary substitute automobile.

The driver was entirely not at fault for the accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 263(5)(a.1) of the Insurance Act extinguished the rental company's right of action against the driver under the rental agreement because he was not at fault.

The court also rejected the rental company's argument that it could claim directly against the driver's insurer, concluding that the statutory scheme requires the rental company to look to its own insurer for compensation.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the appeal lacked merit and the tenants failed to pay rent.

The court found it would be unfair to proceed with the motion to quash given the short timeframe and the tenants' need to obtain transcripts.

The court adjourned the motion to quash to be heard with the expedited appeal, subject to strict conditions requiring the tenants to pay ongoing and arrears rent, order transcripts, and perfect the appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

The self-represented appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that preserved her tenancy but denied her request to be re-admitted to the rental unit pending an urgent hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting that the court does not ordinarily hear appeals from interlocutory LTB orders and the appeal would be moot before it could be heard.

After reviewing the appellant's submissions, the court stayed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01, finding it premature and of no practical effect.

The moving party employer sought to quash the responding party employee's appeal of an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

The employer argued the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The employee and an intervener argued the arbitration clause was void for contracting out of the Employment Standards Act, meaning the initial stay decision was made without jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the appeal was not completely devoid of merit and raised important questions of law regarding the intersection of the Arbitration Act and the Employment Standards Act.

The appellant appealed a costs decision arising from a summary judgment motion.

The motion judge had awarded substantial indemnity costs against the appellant personally, based on a finding that the appellant's counsel breached his duty to the court by failing to bring a relevant, determinative case to the court's attention.

Although the underlying action settled and the appeal became moot, the lawyer was granted intervenor status to appeal the findings of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge breached procedural fairness by making findings of professional misconduct based on his own research without giving the lawyer notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding her application for Income Replacement Benefits was statute-barred.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the insurer's denial letter was valid and by refusing to extend the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the appellant's challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise extricable questions of law.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decision of Cavanagh J. dated August 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the agreed amount of $20,000 payable by the responding parties.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to settle a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and to schedule an expedited appeal date.

The moving party, UAP Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of E. M. Morgan J. released July 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding parties Robert Dinino and Lawrence Tyler Bacchus, and $7,500 to the responding parties Yako Hirmiz (Jacob) Yako, Sabah (Sam) Yako, and Sako Auto Parts Inc.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 13, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated July 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated April 6, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal several orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant condominium corporation sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision regarding an accessible parking dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust its statutory right of appeal under the Condominium Act.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review is not available where an adequate alternative remedy, such as a statutory appeal on questions of law, exists.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court deputy judge's interlocutory order setting aside a default judgment and awarding $400 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant argued the costs award exceeded the $100 limit under Rule 15.07 absent special circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the deputy judge had jurisdiction under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and provided adequate reasons for the higher award.

Furthermore, the Court exercised its discretion to decline relief, emphasizing that judicial review of Small Claims Court interlocutory orders should only be granted in exceptional circumstances to preserve the informal and cost-effective nature of the process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Parole Board decision suspending her parole and issuing a Canada-wide arrest warrant.

The applicant had continued to report to her parole officer for months after the suspension, unaware of the warrant, and was even told she had successfully completed her sentence.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention despite the usual requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court held that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to effectively notify the applicant's parole officers of the suspension, and quashed the decision and related warrants.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife's motion for partition and sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The husband argued the parties had reached a binding agreement for him to buy out the wife's interest.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no meeting of the minds, as the husband's acceptance did not include the wife's requirement for a spousal support release.

The Court also found no error in the order for partition and sale under the Partition Act, noting no malicious or oppressive conduct by the wife.

The appeal was dismissed.