ODC 2023

The self-represented applicant attempted to commence two fresh applications for judicial review regarding matters related to his ongoing criminal trial, including complaints about interpretation services and exhibit lists.

The Divisional Court had previously restricted the applicant's access to the court due to his repeated commencement of vexatious proceedings, requiring him to obtain prior permission before filing new matters.

Because the applicant failed to comply with this requirement, the court directed staff to refuse to issue the Notices of Application and cautioned the applicant about potential contempt proceedings.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) for a self-employed lawyer injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator erred in law by applying section 4(2)3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which applies to employed persons, rather than section 4(3), which applies to self-employed persons.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request for reimbursement of a $1,695 cancellation fee charged after the respondent failed to attend a consent independent medical examination.

The motion judge had found she lacked jurisdiction to order costs for a missed appointment not scheduled by court order.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Superior Court has broad jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order costs for missed appointments where the examination was consented to in writing.

The court ordered the respondents to pay the $1,695 missed appointment fee and $8,500 in costs.

The tenants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a case management judge's order requiring them to pay ongoing rent and a portion of substantial arrears to maintain a stay of eviction pending their appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the respondent was not the true landlord and objected to the case management process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the case management judge's discretionary order, and affirmed the court's practice of managing LTB appeals efficiently.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

LifeLabs brought a motion to vary an order dismissing its request for the production of documents from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).

LifeLabs sought internal documents related to a joint investigation by the IPC and its British Columbia counterpart into a cyber-attack, arguing they were necessary for its judicial review application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the motion judge's conclusion that the requested documents were protected by deliberative secrecy.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to comply with prior court directions to pay rent, file appeal materials, and did not appear on the motion.

The court found the appeal was continued solely for delay and to obtain the benefit of an automatic stay.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The appellant contractor appealed a decision dismissing its construction lien action against the respondent homeowners.

The appellant had performed emergency plumbing and remediation work, billed an excessive amount, left the work unfinished, and used a fake law firm to threaten the homeowners.

The Associate Justice dismissed the lien, contract, and quantum meruit claims because the appellant was not the contracting party, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that allowing the appellant to misuse the legal process in furtherance of a deceptive scheme would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions arising from a privacy breach at two hospitals.

Rogue hospital employees accessed the contact information of maternity patients and sold it to RESP salespeople.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the accessed information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and basic hospital visit details) was personal but not highly private, and that the intrusion would not be regarded by a reasonable person as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.

Although the motions judge erred in his class definition, the appeal was dismissed because the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion were not met.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found the landlords served a notice of termination in bad faith but declined to award any remedies under s. 57(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision not to award damages for increased rent, moving expenses, or general damages, and its refusal to impose an administrative fine, were discretionary and based on factual findings that disclosed no error of law.

The self-represented tenants appealed a Superior Court order requiring them to pay $47,300 in rental arrears and vacate their unit.

They filed the appeal in the Divisional Court.

The court held that because the appealed order included an eviction order, jurisdiction properly rested with the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal and costs were awarded to the landlords.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment entered against them after they failed to attend a virtual trial.

The appellants had requested an adjournment, citing a desire for an in-person trial and their agent's presence in Florida, which the trial judge refused.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to refuse the adjournment, noting the appellants' reasons were illogical and lacked detail.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to add two snow removal contractors as defendants after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued misnomer and discoverability.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that the statement of claim did not point the 'litigation finger' at the sidewalk contractor, as it only alleged injuries from a fall on the roadway.

The Court also upheld the finding that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to identify the contractors within the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion for a publication ban, anonymization order, and sealing of documents in her application for judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The underlying complaint related to the police investigation of an alleged sexual assault against the applicant while she was working as an exotic dancer.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that court openness posed a serious risk to the applicant's privacy and psychological well-being, and that the benefits of protecting her identity outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, allowing the applicant to proceed using initials.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to extend the time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

Upon reviewing the chronology, the parties agreed that the motion for leave to appeal was actually served and filed within the time provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On consent, the motion for leave to extend time was withdrawn, and a case conference was directed for related matters.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring the production of a witness statement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion reserved to the panel hearing the appeal and fixed at $3,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to pay a debt to the respondent bank, arguing he received the motion materials too late to prepare a defence.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal and did not attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court found no basis to set aside the order, noting the appellant had admitted to owing the money before the motion judge and that inability to pay is not a defence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.