ODC 2023

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting benefits to a worker who sustained paraplegia in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company truck.

The worker was driving home from work with coworkers and was found to be impaired by alcohol.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the worker was in the course of employment and that, despite his serious and wilful misconduct in driving impaired, he was entitled to benefits under s. 17 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because his injuries resulted in a serious impairment.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions.

The respondents requested that the motions be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the scheduling decision, finding it was moot and sought unavailable relief.

However, the court declined to dismiss the motion for leave to appeal the decision denying leave to examine witnesses, as the primary relief sought was not challenged under the Rule 2.1 process.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Child and Family Services Review Board, the Children's Aid Society, and the Ottawa Police Services Board regarding a brief child protection investigation.

The court upheld a motion judge's dismissal of the application against the police board as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the remainder of the application due to excessive and unexplained delay in perfecting it, and alternatively found that the board's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's appeal of a final family law order and costs order.

The father, who resides in the United States, had no assets in Ontario and the court found good reason to believe his appeal lacked merit.

Applying the two-stage analysis under Rule 61.06(1), the court balanced the father's expenses in exercising parenting time against the mother's need for protection from costs.

The court ordered the father to post $15,000 as security for costs of the appeal.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision and submitted a claim for prescription medication to her auto insurer.

The insurer required her to undergo a medical examination under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to determine if the expense was reasonable and necessary.

When the appellant refused, the Licence Appeal Tribunal barred her from disputing the denial of her claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in its statutory interpretation, finding that insurers cannot require section 44 examinations for prescription medication claims because such claims are not submitted through treatment and assessment plans.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's supplemental award regarding a policy grievance over the disclosure of employee medical information.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer's policy, which allowed disclosure of medical information beyond functional limitations without consent, was of no force and effect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably concluded he had jurisdiction to address the policy and reasonably applied established arbitral principles limiting the disclosure of employee health records to functional abilities for accommodation purposes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated April 17, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Braid J. dated June 16, 2023.

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

The moving parties, class action plaintiffs, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Glustein J. dated December 6, 2022.

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

The plaintiffs moved for judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pre-trial conference.

The defendants argued the agreement was only 'in principle' because essential terms, such as the timing of payment and the specific terms of the release, were not finalized.

The court found that the parties had a mutual intention to create a binding contract and that the missing terms were non-essential.

The court implied a reasonable period for payment and standard release terms, granting judgment to enforce the $1.65 million settlement.

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.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The moving party, a lumber supplier, sought an extension of time to commence an appeal to the Divisional Court from an order regarding the preservation of funds under Rule 45.02 and the Construction Lien Act.

The moving party had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, caused no prejudice to the respondents, and raised arguable questions of law on the merits.

The self-represented appellant mother sought an urgent stay of a parenting order pending appeal, specifically to prevent the respondent father from changing the children's school.

The request was made just days before the new school term commenced.

The court noted that the father had final decision-making authority under the existing order and that a similar urgent request had recently been denied by another judge.

The court denied the request for an urgent stay, finding that the timing made it impossible to properly and fairly consider the request prior to the beginning of the school term.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 4, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of McSweeney J. dated May 31, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated May 25, 2023.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court also amended previous orders to state that the order will cease to have effect if the defendant pays the Canadian dollar equivalent of €3,266,122.45 into court as security.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a vacant property solely owned by the respondent, where the parties had previously cohabited.

The appellant argued the sale should be delayed until the validity of their cohabitation agreement, which contained a purchase option, was determined at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent should not be forced to pay significant monthly maintenance for an unused property, especially since the sale proceeds would be held in trust pending final resolution.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a solicitor's account assessment.

They argued the appeal judge denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, muting one of the appellants during a virtual hearing, and proceeding without full transcripts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the adjournment and to control the court's process by muting a disruptive litigant.

The court also upheld the assessment officer's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs against the appellants.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the required timeframe and an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The court also noted that granting the extension would prejudice the respondent and the child, especially with a trial scheduled in two months.