ODC 2023

The moving parties, Eliezer Karp and DJD Law Professional Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of A.P. Ramsay J. dated November 21, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded costs outlines or bills of costs, no costs were ordered.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 18, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order and a motion to strike or file further evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $10,000.

The moving party, Juan Guillermo Gutierrez, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of McEwen J. dated December 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, the Receiver, fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 17, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the responding party failed to file a Costs Outline.

The moving parties, Societe Air France and Air France-KLM Group, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated July 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,000.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Regional Senior Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 and awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious.

The respondent requested the appeal be summarily dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the total amount claimed in the dismissed action exceeded $50,000.

Furthermore, the court found the appeal was clearly frivolous and vexatious given the appellant's history of litigation and the findings of the lower court.

The appeal was permanently stayed with no costs awarded.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion for findings of contempt and granting various temporary orders.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting that the dismissal of contempt allegations is a final order within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The moving party accepted this characterization and failed to identify any interlocutory issues for appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declined to transfer the matter to the Court of Appeal due to a lack of merit.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the applicant employer's application for judicial review for delay.

The employer had failed to perfect its application within the court-ordered timetable or the 30-day period under the Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in a delay of at least 11 months.

The court found the delay excessive, the employer's explanation unreasonable, and noted prejudice to the union due to the prolonged uncertainty and the employer's attempt to substantively amend its application.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the LTB proceeded with the hearing in their absence after they requested an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the LTB followed its own rules, as the tenants failed to provide evidence supporting their adjournment request prior to the hearing.

The court also upheld the LTB's refusal to admit a doctor's note as fresh evidence on reconsideration, noting it lacked sufficient detail.

The motion to quash was granted and an eviction date was set.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 4, 2022 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded their costs materials to CaseLines by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was final, meaning an appeal could be brought as of right.

The court set a deadline for any motion to extend the time to appeal and ordered no costs for the leave motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,334.37 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) brought a motion to seal a portion of its record of proceedings in an application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of IPC decisions regarding redacted police records.

The IPC sought to file an unredacted 'private' record under seal to prevent the premature disclosure of the very information at issue in the judicial review.

The court granted the sealing order, finding it necessary to prevent a serious risk to the integrity of the judicial review process and noting that disclosure would render the application moot.

The appellant buyer appealed a decision dismissing its motion for production of the respondent sellers' lawyer's file.

The appellant argued that the respondents impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied on legal advice in good faith when exercising a solicitor approval clause to terminate a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a denial of bad faith and an assertion of good faith reliance on legal advice does not amount to an implied waiver of privilege.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the solicitor approval clause.