ODC 2022

The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.

The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.

The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

A related motion to strike fresh evidence was dismissed as moot, as the court concluded it would not grant leave even if the evidence were admitted.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing nine judicial review applications on the basis that it lacked public interest standing.

The Divisional Court panel found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for public interest standing.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue transcending specific individual interests and that judicial review was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicants, police officers who took leaves of absence to serve as executives on the Ontario Provincial Police Association, sought an interim stay of a misconduct hearing pending their application for judicial review.

They argued the Adjudicator erred in finding they were still 'police officers' subject to discipline under the Police Services Act while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the misconduct proceedings to continue without further delay.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed a Small Claims Court deputy judge's costs award of $3,772.24 against him.

The deputy judge had found 'special circumstances' under Rule 15.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules to award costs exceeding the $100 limit for a motion, concluding the claim was an abuse of process.

In these additional reasons, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal of the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The court noted that while it might not have allowed certain disbursements, the claim was completely lacking a reasonable foundation and the overall costs amount was proportional and reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in ordering that the joint retainer of the accountant continue, and whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents under the retainer agreement.

Leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The tenant brought a motion for interim relief pending his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenant had been evicted based on the landlord's claim that her son required the unit, but the tenant presented new evidence suggesting the unit was re-rented to a non-family member.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and the Board's jurisdiction.

Balancing the factors, the court granted an interim order prohibiting the landlord from re-renting or changing the current use of the premises by family members until the appeal is heard, and expedited the appeal.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for damages after a patron verbally harassed the respondent at a City pool and the respondent's vehicle was subsequently vandalized in the parking lot.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge erred in law by applying a strict liability standard rather than the standard of reasonable care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's conclusions on foreseeability and causation, as there was no evidence that the third-party acts were highly probable consequences of the City's conduct or that the City's actions caused the harm.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay, arguing the appeal was devoid of merit and an abuse of process due to unpaid rent.

The court found the appeal raised a procedural fairness issue, which constitutes a question of law, and was not manifestly devoid of merit.

Noting the tenant's partial payments and completion of appeal materials, the court declined to quash the appeal or lift the stay, but imposed strict terms requiring the tenant to pay ongoing rent plus $700 monthly towards arrears.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a 2016 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against his former employer.

The application was brought more than five years after the HRTO decision.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to mental illness and recently recalled memories.

The court dismissed the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the delay excessive, the explanations incredible, and the proceeding an abuse of process that ignored the principle of finality in litigation.

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a 2015 Labour Relations Board decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering dismissing the application for inordinate delay.

The applicant argued his delay was due to PTSD and memory loss.

The court found the applicant had been actively litigating other matters during the delay period and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or establish a timely intention to appeal.

The motion to extend time was dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $14,300 for extra work performed on a construction project.

The trial judge found that the developer and appellant had insisted on a material change in methodology that required the respondent to use more expensive motorized buggies instead of cement trucks to protect the substrate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, his conclusion that there was an implied agreement to pay for the extras, or his assessment of damages.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting her a rent abatement, which the respondent had already paid.

The moving party filed the motion over two years after the deadline, arguing the Limitations Act applied or the Residential Tenancies Act deadline breached the Charter.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no intention to appeal within the deadline, no good explanation for the delay, and significant prejudice to the respondent who had sold the property years prior.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating its intention to dismiss the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's history of vexatious conduct and her reliance on her husband, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and ordered that the appellant is prohibited from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating it was considering dismissing the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The appellant did not respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and prohibited the appellant from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation in a share purchase agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding fraudulent misrepresentation and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the appellant's failure to disclose material facts about the company's financial status and inability to issue free-trading shares.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding on the date of discoverability for limitation purposes.

The applicant sought judicial review to declare provisions of O. Reg 282/98 under the Assessment Act invalid.

The applicant argued that the regulation's formula for valuing pipelines resulted in an assessed value greater than current value, which it claimed was inconsistent with the purpose of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the purpose of the Assessment Act is to provide for the assessment and taxation of property, not strictly to assess based on current value.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Act expressly authorizes the Minister to make regulations providing an alternate method for valuing pipelines.

The self-represented appellant, who was found to be a party under a disability and represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, sought leave to appeal various orders including a settlement approval.

The Court of Appeal previously quashed her appeal for lack of standing.

The appellant then brought a motion in the Divisional Court.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice, noting the court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal and that the appellant lacked standing to appeal anything other than the order appointing the litigation guardian.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1, without prejudice to the appellant bringing a proper motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the appointment order.

The appellant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an appeal without obtaining the required leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant claimed to have received legal advice that leave was not required for an appeal.

The court rejected this argument, noting that leave is required to bring an appeal.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and a subsequent request for a panel review was denied as the decision was made pursuant to Rule 2.1.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his claim for enhanced attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's findings that the appellant could not claim retroactive benefits without a valid reason for delay and that the definition of 'incurred' under the New Schedule applied procedurally to his claim.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the 2% per month interest rate on overdue benefits under the Old Schedule applied as a substantive benefit, rather than the 1% rate under the New Schedule.