ODC 2023

The appellants requested an adjournment on the day of their appeal hearing, citing a last-minute change in counsel.

The court noted that the hearing had been scheduled for months and that the late request wasted court resources.

However, given the breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and the new counsel's inability to argue the appeal, the court granted a short adjournment.

The new hearing date was made peremptory on the appellants, and they were ordered to pay costs thrown away of $2,500 to each respondent group.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Petersen J. dated May 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court dated March 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 for unpaid trailer fees under an agency agreement.

The respondent had sued for only three of seven outstanding invoices to stay within the Small Claims Court's monetary jurisdiction, intending to bring a second action for the remainder.

The Divisional Court held that the right to trailer fees flowed from a single contract, meaning the separate invoices did not constitute separate causes of action.

By splitting the claim to fit within the monetary limit without waiving the excess, the respondent engaged in impermissible cause of action splitting.

The Divisional Court quashed the Small Claims Court decision as a nullity for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the matter to proceed as a Simplified Rules action in the Superior Court of Justice.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding real estate commissions, the successful respondent, Right at Home Realty Inc., sought costs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, opposed the costs and attempted to re-litigate the merits of the appeal, including making unfounded claims of bias.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $5,027.00, finding the amount reasonable given the complexity introduced by the appellant's arguments and noting that her conduct did not cross the threshold into abusive or reprehensible behaviour to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decision to award a transit operations and maintenance contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the successful bidder's proposal was non-compliant with the Request for Proposals because it included a subcontractor who was already the contractor for another transit division, allegedly violating a one-contractor-per-division rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the municipality's interpretation of the RFP—that the restriction applied only to contractors, not subcontractors—was reasonable and that the procurement process was fair and transparent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Parayeski J., dated August 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Liability for costs of the motion was reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, with the quantum fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of A.P. Ramsay J. dated July 13, 2022.

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

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

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding party, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him statutory accident benefits after he fell from the roof of his camper trailer while cleaning it.

The Adjudicator had found the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' because there was no evidence the appellant tripped on the trailer or that the trailer directly caused the fall.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by requiring direct physical contact with the vehicle to establish causation.

The court found that falling from the trailer while inspecting it was a normal incident of the risk created by its use, satisfying the definition of an accident under the Schedule.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) appealed a Superior Court decision staying its application under section 87 of the Health Professions Procedural Code to compel a physician to produce patient records.

The physician had refused to produce records related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and had separately sought judicial review of the CPSO's investigation.

The Divisional Court held that although the appeal might be moot following the dismissal of the judicial review, it should be heard for reasons of judicial economy.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay, finding the applications judge erred in principle by misapprehending the narrow scope of a section 87 application and failing to consider the urgency and public interest in the investigation.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.