ODC 2024

The moving party, a mother who co-owns a property with her daughter, sought an extension of time to appeal an order for the immediate sale of the property, and a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court denied the extension, finding the appeal lacked merit, the moving party had delayed and breached previous court orders, and the responding party was suffering prejudice by bearing the property's expenses while the moving party collected rental income.

The court also noted that even if the extension were granted, a stay would be denied as there was no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding party.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an appraisal award determining the replacement cost and actual cash value of dental equipment damaged in a fire.

The insurer argued the appraisal panel exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the equipment needed replacement rather than cleaning, which it characterized as a coverage issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the panel properly confined itself to valuation issues under Statutory Condition 11.

The court also rejected the insurer's arguments that it was denied procedural fairness during the appraisal process.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed five decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had dismissed several claims as statute-barred, refused to extend the limitation period, and dismissed the remaining claims on their merits for failure to provide required information and treatment plans.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and judicial review applications, finding the LAT's decisions were reasonable, contained no errors of law, and did not breach procedural fairness or exhibit bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision granting the respondent's request for prompt payment under the Construction Act.

The adjudicator found jurisdiction on the basis that the contract was not completed because more than 1% of the contract price was owing.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the adjudicator was plainly wrong in law, as 'price of completion' under s. 2(3) of the Act refers to the value of uncompleted work, not the quantum of disputed payment claims.

The matter was remitted for a fresh determination before a different adjudicator.

The appellant registered an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act but failed to give the required notice within 10 days.

The motion judge voided the enforcement steps and barred the appellant from taking any further steps to enforce the determination.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while voiding the initial enforcement steps was an appropriate discretionary remedy for the non-compliance, barring future enforcement was disproportionate and contrary to the prompt payment scheme of the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the bar on future enforcement was struck out.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order dated February 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but 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 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in respect to both impugned orders and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal an earlier order of Cameron J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties 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 awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The appellant, who resides in Bangladesh and allegedly suffers from a mental disability, sought to be represented by a non-lawyer in an appeal from the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The court held that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a non-lawyer cannot represent a party in the Divisional Court.

The court adjourned the case management conference to allow the non-lawyer to bring a motion to be appointed as a litigation guardian and to retain legal counsel, as required for parties under a disability.

The scheduled appeal date was vacated.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an order refusing to hear an urgent motion regarding parenting and relocation, as the matter was scheduled for an imminent trial.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal under Rule 2.1.02, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court noted the appellant's history of filing voluminous, incomprehensible materials and his apparent desperation to avoid trial.

To prevent further abusive proceedings, the court revoked the appellant's Fee Waiver and required him to seek leave before obtaining any future fee waivers in this proceeding.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Akazaki J., along with motions to extend time and for a stay/injunction pending appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal based on the materials filed, rendering the other motions moot.

The court noted, however, that it did not agree with the lower court's finding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an urgent motion before a proceeding is commenced, citing Rule 37.17 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its motion to oppose confirmation of an assessment of a solicitor's account.

The motion judge had found that the appellant's failure to file an objection prior to the issuance of the certificate of assessment was fatal to its challenge, and that there was no basis to interfere with the Assessment Officer's costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the objection issue was academic as no jurisdictional exception applied, and that the Assessment Officer's costs award was well within her discretion given the appellant's complete refusal to pay the account and the respondent's prior offer to settle.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying his claims for ongoing permanent disability pensions and other benefits related to workplace injuries from 1985.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that WSIAT's decisions were logical, transparent, and amply supported by the medical evidence and applicable policies.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The self-represented appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated February 26, 2024.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his discrimination complaint against a security guard.

The applicant alleged he was unlawfully removed from a convention centre but explicitly denied the discrimination was based on a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated January 2, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 31, 2024.

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 parties.