ODC 2022

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated August 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding party within 30 days.

The moving parties, Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Auto Canada Corp., sought leave to appeal the order of Barnes J. dated June 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded against each moving party, payable to the respondent within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Steele J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether it is legally possible for some limited partners to bring a common law derivative action on behalf of a limited partnership against a general partner.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $3,500 to the respondent, noting that consistent with usual practice, no reasons are provided for decisions on leave to appeal.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had directed the nurses to be cautioned and complete remedial education after they made public statements and social media posts spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures while identifying themselves as nurses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the ICRC reasonably balanced the nurses' Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory mandate to protect the public interest.

The Court held that the remedial actions were proportionate and that the ICRC did not exceed its jurisdiction as a screening committee.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory order that gave the respondent carriage of the sale of a property.

The court applied the factors for granting an extension of time and found that while the delay was short and explained, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it sought to appeal matters not finally determined and took issue with the motion judge's reasons rather than the order itself.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles who sold their vehicles prior to the disclosure of the emissions defeat device.

The motion judge had found no plausible methodology to calculate damages on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by requiring a tangible demonstration of the proposed methodology rather than merely assessing whether it met the low 'some basis in fact' threshold of plausibility.

The matter was remitted to a new judge to rehear the balance of the certification issues.

The tenant appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board relating to claims for damages and rent abatement due to excessive noise from adjacent units.

The Board had awarded a rent abatement and general damages, but dismissed a subsequent duplicative application based on res judicata.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's assessment of damages or its control of its own process.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The appellant appealed findings of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty and costs ordered by the Discipline Committee of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant committed professional misconduct by charging misleading fees, failing to provide medication information, improperly using the title of doctor, and failing to cooperate with an investigator, among other things.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the investigation and hearing were procedurally fair, the factual and credibility findings were reasonable, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the penalty and costs awards were fit.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP sought leave to intervene as a party in an appeal brought by Capital Sports Management Inc. The underlying appeal challenged an order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents based on a finding of an implied joint retainer among Capital Sports, Trinity Development Group Inc., and Gowlings.

Gowlings argued it had a direct interest in the appeal because its conduct and advice were directly impugned.

The court granted Gowlings leave to intervene as a party with limited participation rights, finding that its focused submissions would likely be useful to the court in addressing significant issues about solicitor-client privilege after the breakdown of a relationship involving an implied joint retainer.

The self-represented appellant commenced an appeal in the Divisional Court from a final family law order granting spousal support and equalization.

The amounts ordered were well in excess of the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal, arguing prejudice from delay and that she had previously warned the appellant he was in the wrong court.

Applying the test under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court found there had been confusion regarding jurisdiction and ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 12, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, payable by the moving parties David Atsushi Ohashi and Pamela Gloria Ohashi.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 21, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

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

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated June 7, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 6, 2022.

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

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay $23,054.10 in rent and compensation to the respondent landlords.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Board refused her last-minute request for an adjournment on the basis of a religious holiday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

The court noted the appellant failed to provide timely notice of the conflict, did not comply with the Board's rules for adjournment requests, and had previously failed to comply with conditions attached to a prior adjournment.

The appellant landlord sought to adduce fresh evidence at the outset of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The proposed evidence was an affidavit from building management stating there was no record of the landlord requesting the deactivation of the tenant's key fob.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test.

The court found the evidence could have been obtained prior to the Board hearing with reasonable diligence, and that it would not have been dispositive of the lockout issue given the other evidence of the landlord's threats.

The applicant, operator of Sunset Manor long-term care home, sought judicial review of a Director's decision ordering the home to cease admitting new residents due to a risk of harm.

The applicant argued the decision was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because one of the inspectors was a former employee, that it was denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that the procedural fairness owed was met, and that the Director's decision was reasonable and justified based on a history of non-compliance.