ODC 2024

The appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Divisional Court from a final family law order dealing with parenting time, child support, and mobility.

The respondent objected, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was made under the federal Divorce Act, not provincial legislation.

The court agreed, finding that the trial judge's orders stemmed from the Divorce Act, meaning the appeal must be heard by the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal to the Divisional Court was quashed.

The applicant, a family physician, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming a remedial caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to public statements the applicant made objecting to her church's COVID-19 communion protocols, in which she identified herself as a physician.

The applicant argued the decisions failed to reasonably balance her Charter right to religious expression under the Doré framework.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the screening committee reasonably balanced its statutory mandate to protect the public with the applicant's Charter rights, noting she was not precluded from expressing religious views, but cautioned on identifying herself as a physician when doing so.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) dismissing his claims for income replacement benefits on the basis of res judicata.

The appellant argued that the prior LAT decision only addressed the quantum of benefits, not liability, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT correctly applied the four preconditions for res judicata and that a party cannot ignore a final LAT decision to recommence the same claims.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in adjudicating the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dated July 30, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

Consequently, the responding party's cross-motion was dismissed as moot without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

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

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 all inclusive to the responding party.

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, sought an urgent stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending a review of a single judge's order that had dismissed his appeal for delay and lifted the stay.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried regarding the dismissal for delay, as the tenant had breached a court-ordered schedule without a plausible explanation.

The balance of convenience also favoured the landlord due to the tenant's history of non-payment of rent and delay tactics.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

However, because court staff had misdirected the tenant regarding the proper appellate route, the court granted an extension of time to bring the review motion.

The applicant father, residing in Georgia, sought leave to appeal orders granting the respondent mother primary care of their child and requiring the child's return to Ontario.

The father had previously caused the mother's arrest at the US border and retained the child in Georgia in defiance of Ontario court orders.

The Divisional Court refused to schedule an urgent case conference or hear the applicant's procedural motions, holding that he could not seek the assistance of the Ontario courts while actively and defiantly breaching their orders.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted her an adjournment of a family law trial on terms, including the payment of costs thrown away.

A prior case management order prohibited the parties from bringing any further motions without leave.

The Divisional Court held that the prior order remained binding despite the commencement of the trial.

The motion for leave to appeal was stayed pending the applicant obtaining leave to bring the motion or the resumption of the trial.

The moving party sought to quash the respondent's application for judicial review and motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Land Tribunal decision.

The moving party argued the proceedings were moot due to recent legislative amendments to the Planning Act under Bill 185.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the moving party failed to meet the high threshold of showing the proceedings were manifestly devoid of merit, leaving the statutory interpretation and mootness issues to be decided by the panel hearing the merits.

The appellant, a pedestrian injured in a car accident, appealed the Licence Appeal Tribunal's denial of her request to adjourn a hearing regarding her catastrophic impairment designation.

The adjournment was sought due to a breakdown in her solicitor-client relationship on the eve of the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was denied procedural fairness as she demonstrated a complete inability to represent herself at the complex hearing.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing on the merits.

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, appeared for a motion without having uploaded her materials to Case Center in advance.

She brought a considerable volume of printed material but no copies for the responding parties or the court.

To accommodate the moving party's agent, who had a hearing impairment, and to provide a fair opportunity to present arguments, the Divisional Court converted the oral motion to a hearing in writing and set a peremptory schedule for the delivery of electronic materials and written submissions.

The tenants appealed an order requiring them to pay $45,397.40 in rent arrears to the landlord.

They argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should have been heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging the landlord artificially inflated the arrears by refusing rent to exceed the Board's monetary limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly exercised jurisdiction under s. 207(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as the claim exceeded the Board's $35,000 limit, and there was no evidence the landlord improperly inflated the arrears.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order regarding retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

He argued the motion judge erred by refusing to hear his cross-motion for table support, finding one child was not a dependent while taking part-time virtual courses, and awarding costs based on bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the dependency finding and upholding the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the cross-motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal costs, noting the bad faith finding was justified by the father's failure to disclose income increases.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order denying her request to adjourn a summary judgment motion brought by the respondents regarding an improvident realization claim.

The respondents requested a case conference to expedite the leave motion so as not to lose their summary judgment date.

The applicant, self-represented, declined to expedite the process and raised a conflict of interest concern regarding the case management judge.

The judge declined to take any steps at the case conference, noting the applicant bears the risk that her leave motion may become moot if summary judgment is granted.

The self-represented appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her $30,000 claim for property damage because she failed to provide proof of repair costs.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal or upload any documents.

The court noted that while the failure to prove repair costs is a question of fact, the potential entitlement to nominal damages or procedural fairness might raise a question of law.

The court adjourned the matter, directing a case conference to reschedule the appeal and strongly urging the appellant to seek legal advice.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting the tenants rent abatements for failure to maintain the rental unit.

At a case conference, the landlord sought to schedule a motion to re-assert a stay of the ongoing $1,000 monthly rent abatement, claiming the required repairs were complete.

The tenants disputed this claim.

The court set a schedule for the stay motion, adjourned the main appeal, and ordered that the landlord and his children are prohibited from personally entering the rental unit pending the motion, requiring any remaining work to be done by licensed professionals.

The appellant valet parking operator appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for the theft of the respondent's vehicle, which was stolen after an employee left it idling and unattended with the keys inside.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on negligence and agency, agreeing that the valet breached the standard of care.

However, the appeal was granted because the trial judge erred by adding a related corporate entity as a defendant on their own initiative without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the added party to respond.

The matter was remanded for a new trial.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of a final parenting order.

The motion judge had temporarily reduced the appellant's parenting time until he complied with the order, which the appellant argued was an impermissible variation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a temporary variation to facilitate compliance.

The court also upheld the contempt findings regarding unilateral medical decisions and withholding the children, and rejected the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to his occupation of an Airbnb unit.

The appellant had booked the unit for several months and alleged he was illegally locked out when the respondent refused a further extension.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the unit fell within the section 5(a) exemption for temporary living accommodations, noting the unit was fully furnished and akin to a motel.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's decision to hear the jurisdiction and lockout applications together.

The appeal was dismissed.