ODC 2023

The appellants appealed an order of an Associate Justice striking out their statements of claim and dismissing their action.

The court found the notice of appeal sought unavailable relief, lacked coherence, and was unconnected to the appeal itself.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment on a settlement allegedly reached during a pre-trial conference.

On the return of the motion, the defendants sought an adjournment to retain new counsel, having previously indicated they would not file responding materials.

Finding the adjournment request to be a potential abuse of process to delay payment, the court granted the adjournment but ordered the corporate defendant to immediately pay the $1,650,000 settlement amount into trust on an interim basis, along with $10,000 in costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent lawyer $5,345 for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the trial judge did not adequately advise the self-represented appellant of his right to cross-examine the respondent, and that the trial judge erred in enforcing a limited scope retainer that was not reduced to writing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided adequate guidance to the self-represented appellant and that the failure to put the retainer in writing did not invalidate the respondent's claim for services rendered.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding a builder's licence renewal.

The LAT sought to make limited submissions on the statutory context, standard of review, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation, without addressing the merits of the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed intervention would provide a useful perspective without compromising impartiality or causing undue delay, and imposed conditions on its participation.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the respondent landlord to convert the unit to a non-residential use.

The appellants argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment, finding the landlord required possession, and refusing discretionary relief from eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of fact or discretionary decisions, not extricable questions of law as required for a statutory appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant appealed an order granting a writ of possession and costs in relation to a commercial tenancy.

After securing replacement housing, the appellant no longer sought to overturn the writ of possession but amended her Notice of Appeal to add new claims for relief regarding moving expenses and the respondent's actions.

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the new claims.

The court granted the motion, finding that the new claims were not before the motion judge and were therefore frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with respect to the new claims, leaving only the issue of costs, which requires leave to appeal.

The appellants appealed an order striking their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for failing to comply with a costs order.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness and that the Associate Judge erred by not considering the merits of their claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellants were given multiple opportunities to pay the costs or provide evidence of impecuniosity.

The court also held that the rules permitting the striking of pleadings for non-compliance do not require a consideration of the underlying merits of the case.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal and for a stay of two previous orders.

Prior to the hearing, the moving party filed a Notice of Abandonment of Appeal.

Consequently, the Divisional Court dismissed the motions as abandoned.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The appellant doctor performed a septorhinoplasty on a patient and charged professional and facility fees for the rhinoplasty component, claiming it was uninsured.

The Ministry of Health determined the entire procedure was medically necessary and therefore an insured service, requiring the doctor to reimburse the patient.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirmed the Ministry's decision.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding its interpretation of the Schedule of Benefits was correct and its factual determination that the rhinoplasty was medically necessary was reasonable.

The tenants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for rent arrears.

The Board had found the landlord was exempt from rent increase guidelines, resulting in a substantial rent increase the tenants could not afford.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that while the tenants had an intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay due to medical issues, the proposed appeal lacked merit and the ongoing accumulation of arrears caused significant prejudice to the landlord.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that resulted in her eviction for rent arrears.

The eviction was executed by the Sheriff before a stay was in place, and the landlord subsequently re-rented the unit to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court held that it could not restore the tenant to the unit or order the landlord to provide a different unit.

The court also dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding multiplicity of proceedings, issue estoppel, loss of jurisdiction, and procedural fairness, finding that the LTB's distinct processes for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent were appropriate and fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following a new trial where the plaintiff was successful in the main action and the third-party claim was dismissed, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in costs, noting the defendant's unreasonable failure to accept a pre-trial offer to settle.

The successful third party was awarded $15,081.60 in costs.

The court considered the defendant's status as a non-profit organization and its partial success in an earlier appeal when reducing the overall costs claimed.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review to challenge the quantum of a costs order made against it on a jurisdiction motion.

The applicant had previously appealed the jurisdiction decision to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and rejected allegations of bias against the motion judge.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant failed to pursue its statutory right to seek leave to appeal the costs order and was attempting to re-litigate bias allegations already decided by the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought an urgent motion for a stay pending appeal, which was adjourned and ultimately became moot when her motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The responding estate trustees and the Children's Lawyer sought their costs of the stay motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties were required to oppose the stay motion due to the broad relief initially sought and the urgency claimed by the moving party.

Applying the principles from Sawdon Estate, the court made a blended costs order, fixing the responding parties' full indemnity costs and directing the moving party to pay a partial indemnity portion, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Law Society Tribunal refusing his paralegal licence application after it had already been granted.

The Law Society discovered the applicant had failed to disclose a prior disciplinary sanction from the Real Estate Council of Ontario on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted its governing statute and by-laws to allow for the post-issuance refusal of a licence where an applicant deliberately makes a false declaration.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had a full opportunity to be heard at the licensing hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the renewal of a vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Attorney General sought to make submissions on the proper interpretation of the 'integrity and honesty' provision, arguing it would impact similar provisions in numerous other statutes.

The court found that the Attorney General met the test for intervention, noting the public interest and the Attorney General's unique position to assist the court on broader statutory implications.

The motion was granted on consent, subject to conditions.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal both orders.

No costs were awarded as the moving party did not seek them.