ODC 2021

The moving party mother sought an order for security for costs against the responding party father, who was seeking leave to appeal an ex parte order requiring him to return their children from the United Kingdom to Ontario.

The court found that the father was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and failed to establish impecuniosity.

Furthermore, the court determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise issues of general importance.

The motion for security for costs was granted, and the father was ordered to post $2,500 before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $2,321.02 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs outlines, no costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a Discipline Committee decision awarding $35,000 in costs to the respondents after dismissing professional misconduct charges against them.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee majority erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors by failing to apply the correct legal test, ignoring relevant expert evidence, and considering irrelevant factors such as the complainant's motivation.

The costs award was set aside.

The applicant sought to have an application for judicial review heard by a single judge pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act due to urgency.

The court directed that the matter be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court, noting that with the advent of CaseLines, ZOOM, and coordinated case management, expedited panel hearings can be arranged for matters arising anywhere in Ontario.

The court clarified that recourse to s. 6(2) should only be had in truly exigent circumstances where administrative oversight cannot accommodate an urgent panel hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint against a justice of the peace who convicted him of a red-light camera offence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council's investigation was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable.

The court noted that the applicant's complaints primarily concerned judicial decision-making, which falls outside the Council's jurisdiction, and that the transcript showed the justice of the peace treated the applicant fairly.

The appellant, an Uber driver, sought accident benefits after an altercation with passengers resulted in him swerving his vehicle and injuring his knee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as it failed both the purpose and causation tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests from Chisolm and that the appellant's challenges were impermissible appeals of factual findings.

The defendants brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal of an order requiring the plaintiff's corporate representative to answer refusals and re-attend an examination.

The plaintiff argued the order was final because the representative was a non-party.

The Divisional Court held that an order against a corporate representative put forward by a party is interlocutory, not final, as the representative is not a true stranger to the litigation.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for a sealing order for parts of the record on an application for judicial review, co-extensive with its own prior disclosure order.

The respondent complainant contested sealing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted the sealing order as requested, noting that the tribunal's disclosure order remains effective unless varied or set aside, and that no party had objected to it in the proceedings below.

The media applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision in a police disciplinary hearing to impose a publication ban on a video exhibit and subsequently allow the exhibit to be withdrawn from the record.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to apply the proper Dagenais-Mentuck test before granting the ban and by allowing the exhibit to be withdrawn when the media sought to challenge it.

The Court set aside the publication ban and the withdrawal order, directing that the video be made public with the victim's name redacted.

The Court also ordered the police service to provide contemporaneous access to exhibits during future hearings in accordance with the open court principle.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a decision dismissing her claim for equalization of net family property.

The motion judge had dismissed the equalization claim because it was brought more than six years after the date of separation, rendering it statute-barred under s. 7(3) of the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court found that while the appellant had a reasonable explanation for her delay in filing the appeal in the correct court, the proposed appeal lacked merit because the separation date was res judicata and the limitation period had clearly expired.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant veterinarian sought judicial review of an interim suspension order made by the Discipline Committee pending a hearing into allegations of professional misconduct involving the sexual assault of a minor.

The applicant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to make interim suspension orders and that the decision lacked a proper evidentiary basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act reasonably provided the Committee with jurisdiction to make substantive interim orders.

The Court also held that the Committee's decision to impose the suspension was reasonable given the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior discipline and criminal history for similar conduct.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his unjust enrichment claim for yard maintenance and snow removal on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found the deputy judge erred by deciding the case on a jurisdictional issue that was never pleaded or raised, denying procedural fairness.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Small Claims Court did have jurisdiction because the parties had previously reached a mediated settlement before the LTB that expressly permitted the tenant to pursue this specific claim in Small Claims Court, triggering the exception under s. 194(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to the deputy judge for a decision on the merits.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Connell J. dated July 30, 2021.

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

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order on a motion to change child support, arguing errors of fact and law regarding imputed income and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the appellant's persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

However, the Court found an error of law in the trial judge's application of the 2017 Guidelines instead of the 2011 Guidelines for the period prior to November 2017.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct the child support calculations using the 2011 Guidelines, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against the respondents.

The deputy judge had dismissed the action under Rule 12.02(3) on the basis that it was commenced after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the deputy judge had only solicited written submissions on whether the action was an abuse of process, not on the limitation period defence.

The dismissal order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court.

The moving party, the Corporation of the County of Renfrew, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

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

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 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.

As neither party filed costs submissions, no costs were awarded.

The applicant sought to commence an application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Judicial Council regarding a complaint against a Chief Justice.

The court found the notice of application to be deficient, lacking coherent information about the complaint and seeking relief outside the court's jurisdiction.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, staying the application and giving the applicant an opportunity to provide written submissions explaining why the proceeding should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.