ODC 2022

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to agree upon a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated January 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $3,613.74.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting its practice of not providing reasons for such decisions.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the responding developer, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against officers of the London Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the officers discriminated against him based on his gender during an intimate partner dispute.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act, concluding that the underlying issues regarding access to the matrimonial home and corporate property were better suited for family, civil, or landlord and tenant courts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and adequately explained.

The appellants appealed a costs order from a summary judgment motion where they were granted an injunction regarding a wood stove and $1,500 in damages for nuisance, but no costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the respondents had offered to consent to the injunction early on and the appellants had claimed $60,000 in damages but only recovered $1,500.

The court found no error in principle in the motion judge's decision that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a grievor who had been discharged for fraudulent misconduct, substituting a ten-day suspension.

The arbitrator found the employer engaged in discriminatory treatment because other employees who committed similar misconduct received significantly lighter penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably shifted the evidentiary onus to the employer after the union established a prima facie case of discriminatory discipline, and reasonably concluded the penalty was appropriate.

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the request in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the Registrar's refusal to issue him a cannabis retail manager licence.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, including his involvement in an illegal dispensary, a prior conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and ongoing civil litigation involving allegations of bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in its factual findings and that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness during the hearing de novo.

The moving party filed multiple versions of a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal a single judge's decision to the Divisional Court, which lacks jurisdiction for such an appeal.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 indicating it was considering dismissing the motion as an abuse of process.

The moving party failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support an adjournment request or substantive submissions in response to the notice.

The court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process but granted the moving party leave to commence a new motion seeking a review under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants, affiliated concrete suppliers, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The cancellation followed a history of poor safety compliance and four fatal collisions involving the appellants' drivers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of management's responsibility, the preventability of the collisions, or the appellants' safety record.

The Court also held that the permanent cancellation of the CVOR was not a disproportionate sanction given the ongoing safety problems and the need to protect the public.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction for seriously impairing the safety of another person during a physical altercation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's challenges to the Board's evaluation of the evidence were questions of fact, not law.

The Court also held that the Board made no error of law in its analysis under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as it properly considered the circumstances of both parties before exercising its discretion to grant and briefly postpone the eviction.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that refused to deduct the respondent's $120,000 long-term disability settlement from her statutory income replacement benefits.

The insurer argued the settlement represented double recovery for income loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicator's finding that the lump-sum settlement resolved multiple claims, including extracontractual damages, and could not be strictly allocated as an income replacement benefit under section 7(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicants abandoned their motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body regarding minor variances.

The self-represented respondents sought costs for the abandoned motion under Rule 37.09(3).

The court recognized that self-represented parties may be entitled to costs for work that would ordinarily be done by a lawyer, but found the respondents' claims of $10,000 and $2,000 to be overstated.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 to one respondent and $400 to the other, representing a proportionate amount for their efforts.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

A motions judge struck her affidavit containing evidence not before the HRTO and subsequently dismissed her motion to adduce further evidence as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The applicant brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside those decisions.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time and that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in applying the general rule against admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board affirming a public health order to produce patient contact information following an infection control lapse at a dental clinic.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to exclude the appellant's husband, who acted as her agent, on its own initiative due to his alleged incompetence and prior inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation on the tribunal to inquire into the competence of a chosen agent or to exclude him absent an objection or clear prejudice.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and recover damages for a fire.

The Board found the fire was caused by a discarded cigarette butt from elsewhere, not by the tenant, which the Divisional Court held was an unappealable finding of fact.

Although the tenant breached the lease by failing to maintain liability insurance, the Board granted relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an eviction order based on severe hoarding and fire hazards.

The tenant had failed to attend the original hearing, claiming she did not receive notice.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's factual determinations regarding notice and the tenant's ability to participate did not raise any questions of law.

The court held the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Belobaba J. dated January 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the Foodland plaintiffs.

The self-represented client brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order regarding a dispute with her former solicitors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the client to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding solicitors.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 1, 2022.

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