ODC 2023

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $2,500.

The court also set an expedited schedule for the hearing of the appeal and any contemplated motion to stay the appeal pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving party, the Town of Caledon, brought a motion for leave to apply for judicial review of two decisions made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The court also ordered that the disputed amount paid into court remain there pending the final decision, and stayed the impugned orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

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

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 applicant, an unlicensed cemetery owner, sought judicial review of an order by the Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario directing it not to interfere with the interment of a deceased individual.

The applicant argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine interment rights and denied it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar had the statutory authority to ensure orderly burials and incidentally determine interment rights based on reasonable evidence, without breaching procedural fairness.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for property damage against former tenants for lack of jurisdiction.

The tenants had vacated the property on July 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that under the amended Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Landlord and Tenant Board does not have jurisdiction over claims where the tenant vacated before September 21, 2021.

Therefore, the Small Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction.

The matter was remanded to the Small Claims Court.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Osborne J. dated January 19, 2023.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated April 13, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,874.14.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sugunasiri J. dated January 6, 2023.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of J.E. Mills J. dated December 15, 2022.

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

The applicant, a forensic pathologist, sought judicial review of a reporting letter issued by the Death Investigation Oversight Council regarding her complaint against the Chief Forensic Pathologist.

The applicant alleged that the Chief Forensic Pathologist abused his authority by interfering with her conclusion that a child's death was due to natural causes rather than abuse.

The Council investigated and issued recommendations to improve the death investigation system but did not recommend the Chief Forensic Pathologist's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council is an advisory body, not a disciplinary tribunal, and its decision not to make findings of fact or recommend dismissal was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay rent arrears for a basement unit.

He argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the lease was part of a larger commercial transaction and he never lived in the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of s. 202(1) of the Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction.

The court noted the appellant voluntarily entered into a residential lease to avoid paying HST and could not resile from it when convenient.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding he engaged in professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Tribunal found the appellant defrauded OHIP by billing for thousands of tests he did not provide, received kickbacks for referring patients to a cardiac clinic, and conducted medically unnecessary tests.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting evidence obtained during a search of his clinic, relying on the College's expert, and failing to assist him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings or factual findings, and upheld the license revocation as a fit penalty for intentional billing fraud.

The respondents (moving parties) brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' application for judicial review of a decision to build a correctional facility in Kemptville, arguing the application was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicants opposed the motion and sought an extension of time, arguing the decision was only communicated via a press release and town hall meeting without formal reasons.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the application should be dismissed for delay, noting the unique circumstances, lack of formal reasons, and potential non-compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding agricultural land.

The motion to dismiss was adjourned to be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The appellant owner appealed a motion judge's order directing the release of holdback funds to subcontractors under the Construction Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in calculating the minimum holdback and in ordering payments without a formal summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the law regarding basic holdback obligations and set-off, and properly utilized the summary procedure under s. 67 of the Act to expedite payment to subcontractors.

The appellant appealed an order vacating its claims for a construction lien and dismissing its breach of contract claims.

The appellant argued it was a 'contractor' under the Construction Act by virtue of an undisclosed assignment agreement, rather than a 'subcontractor'.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's finding that there was no triable issue regarding the assignment, meaning the appellant was a subcontractor whose lien was registered out of time.

The court confirmed that the Associate Justice applied the correct test for a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act and did not improperly convert it into a summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of Income Replacement Benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the adjudicator's assessment of expert evidence and the respondent's conduct were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court concluded there was ample evidence to support the adjudicator's factual findings.

The appellant was seriously injured when a dog knocked her down at an off-leash park.

She sued the dog owner, who failed to defend the action.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion for default judgment, finding the dog merely 'ran into' her, which did not constitute an 'attack' under the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by requiring proof of the dog's intent to injure, failing to consider the deemed admissions in the statement of claim, capping non-pecuniary damages for dog injuries, and improperly deducting private disability insurance benefits from the lost income claim.

The matter was remitted for a new default judgment hearing.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to continue a joint retainer with an accountant and to produce documents to assist the accountant.

The appellants had lost confidence in the accountant and purported to terminate the relationship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by effectively ordering specific performance of a professional relationship where the client had lost confidence.

As the order for the continued retainer was quashed, the order for document production was also set aside.