ODC 2023

The applicants sought judicial review of interlocutory orders staying their proceedings before the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding catastrophic impairment claims.

The LAT had stayed the proceedings to allow the applicants to attend medical examinations requested by the insurer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications as premature, applying the principle that courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no such exceptional circumstances, even though the applicants raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the LAT's power to issue the stays.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that jurisdiction over the proposed appeal lies with the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a property.

The Board had reduced the assessment value of the property to represent equitable assessment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the test for leave was met and that the appeal involved an important question of law regarding the proper interpretation of s. 44(3)(b).

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Shore J. dated March 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specific paragraphs of the orders dated June 27, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

Costs of the motions were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The appellant also brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding his medical condition and the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the original hearing.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that partition and sale would not prejudice the appellant's substantive rights and that the respondent's motion was not frivolous or vexatious.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home and dismissing her cross-motion for temporary exclusive possession.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, balancing the prima facie right to sale against potential prejudice, and appropriately considered the status quo of the parties and their adult children.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court judge on February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Myers J. 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 Nieckarz J. dated February 21, 2023, and other related orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,663.98.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that precluded them from suing the respondent for personal injuries sustained by the applicant at her workplace.

The Tribunal found that both the applicant's employer and the respondent were Schedule 1 employers under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and that the applicant was injured in the course of her employment while returning from a smoke break.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, well-reasoned, and consistent with the evidence, the law, and Board policies.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal asserting jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a water and sewage servicing agreement with the respondent municipality.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the agreement's termination clause by failing to apply a pragmatic and common-sense approach and by considering subsequent conduct without finding ambiguity.

Because the agreement had validly terminated, the statutory basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Municipal Act was removed.

The appeal was granted and the Tribunal's order was quashed.

The applicants, acting through litigation guardians, sought judicial review of decisions regarding secondary school programs offered by the Toronto District School Board.

At a previous case conference, the litigation guardians were directed to retain counsel as required by Rule 7.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to amend their deficient notice of application.

At a subsequent case conference, the applicants sought a continued stay pending the outcome of a similar case, while the respondent sought dismissal for non-compliance.

Finding that the litigation guardians had failed to retain full counsel and that the notice of application remained deficient, the court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he had not suffered a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in her treatment of expert evidence, violated procedural fairness by questioning an expert, misapplied the temporal requirements for assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and used an overly restrictive causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as the adjudicator properly applied a flexible approach to the timing of assessments and correctly considered impairments caused by the traumatic brain injury.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its certification application.

The OLRB had determined that the respondent's work of relining existing sewer pipes using cured-in-place-pipe was maintenance work, not construction work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OLRB's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its application of its own jurisprudence were internally coherent, rational, and entitled to deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation against a property owned by the respondents.

The appellant had sued one of the respondents for defective construction work and alleged that the subsequent sale of the respondent's home to his daughter and son-in-law was a fraudulent conveyance.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge erred in law on the second branch of the test for issuing a CPL, she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision that applied the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act to a claim for residential rental arrears.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the six-year limitation period under section 17 of the Real Property Limitations Act applies to claims for rent between a landlord and tenant.

The court increased the judgment for rental arrears from $8,400 to the full claimed amount of $21,600 and awarded costs to the appellant.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that required it to enter into a collective agreement with the respondent employer following a final offer vote under s. 42(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had refused to sign the agreement, arguing it would break a pattern agreement applicable to the non-ICI construction sector.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions unreasonable, holding that the Act does not require a union to object to a final offer vote at the outset, and that the Board unreasonably excluded the existence of a pattern agreement as a justification for refusing to sign.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Board.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Chalmers J. dated March 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $3,000 all-inclusive.