ODC 2024

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision granting the responding party leave to commence an action under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, identifying specific questions regarding whether the motions judge erred in holding that the Court of Appeal erred in a previous decision, and whether such an error rendered the decision unsafe.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $20,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The tenant appealed an eviction order and a subsequent review order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the reviewing Member.

The tenant claimed he did not receive notice of the original hearing and that the reviewing Member improperly restricted his representative's conduct during the review hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias, and held that the Member's conduct was a reasonable exercise of discretion to manage the hearing expeditiously.

The applicant sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of the Ministry of Mines' decision to add two other First Nations to consultation lists for mining projects on its traditional territory.

The applicant opposed adding the other First Nations as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that the entitlement of the other First Nations to participate as parties must be resolved before hearing the motion for an extension of time, as their rights were directly implicated by the proposed application.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenants' appeal.

The tenants had not paid rent since December 2023 and failed to comply with a prior court direction to pay their monthly rent on October 1, 2024.

The court found that allowing the tenants to continue living in the unit without paying rent would be an abuse of process.

The motion was granted and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The tenant's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision was previously dismissed.

The landlord sought costs of $1,500 for the motion, citing financial prejudice from unpaid rent and the stay of eviction.

The tenant did not provide responding submissions.

The court found the landlord's submissions had merit and awarded costs of $1,500.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing she was denied procedural fairness.

The appellant had retained a paralegal the day before the hearing, who sent an agent to request an adjournment.

Due to a misunderstanding, the agent left before the adjournment was formally considered.

The hearing proceeded with the unrepresented appellant, who was temporarily disconnected and missed the landlord's evidence on the adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the Board's handling of the adjournment, the appellant's disconnection, and the failure to explain the process to the self-represented appellant amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a different Board member.

The tenants appealed an interlocutory order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that granted the landlord's review request and ordered a new hearing for a rent abatement application.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory order of the LTB.

The court declined to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, finding it would be premature.

The appeal was dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent vacant possession of a co-ownership unit and the right to dispose of the appellant's interest to satisfy over $110,000 in unpaid damages and costs from a prior proceeding.

After a motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed for lacking a serious issue to be tried, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant failed to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on orders made in the previous application.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to purchase the respondent's minority shares in a corporation.

The motion judge made the order to advance the litigation, finding that both parties ultimately wanted a share buyout.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the issue of a compelled share purchase was not formally before the motion judge, and that a finding of oppression was required first.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had notice of the argument, suffered no prejudice, and that the court had broad discretion under the Business Corporations Act to order a share purchase without a finding of oppression.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to extend time for judicial review, the respondents sought costs.

The underlying dispute involved a failed $250 used car sale, which the applicant escalated into numerous administrative and legal proceedings.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 against the applicant, finding his proceedings to be frivolous and vexatious.

Additionally, the court revoked the applicant's fee waiver under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act and prohibited him from obtaining further fee waivers in related proceedings without prior judicial permission.

The self-represented applicant, a massage therapist, sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.

The applicant mistakenly believed the College had made a finding of professional misconduct regarding testimonials on a Google Maps listing.

The Divisional Court clarified that the College had only disposed of the matter administratively by requiring corrective actions and training.

Finding the College's disposition reasonable and noting the applicant's ability to remove the offending listing, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed an order reducing the amount of security the respondent was required to pay into court to vacate a construction lien.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by providing deficient reasons that prevented meaningful appellate review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the motion judge's five-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient explanation for reducing the security and failed to address the conflicting evidence regarding the contract price.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different judge.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological and behavioural impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator correctly applied the legal test for causation and that her conclusions were factual findings supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the adjudicator's finding that the appellant failed to prove a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed his claim to set aside a separation agreement.

He argued that he was misled regarding the valuation of the matrimonial home during negotiations.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no deliberate misrepresentation and that the appellant had chosen not to obtain his own valuation to save time and money.

The appeal, along with a request for leave to appeal the costs order, was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order refusing to continue a stay of enforcement of a mortgage and writ of possession.

The applicant had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal but was directed to the Divisional Court.

The court granted an extension of time to file the motion for leave to appeal, as the respondent took no position.

The court declined to grant a stay pending the leave motion, noting it was premature as the respondent was still waiting to renew the writ of possession, but provided directions on how the applicant could seek an injunction if eviction became imminent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Superior Court of Justice decision dated June 24, 2024.

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

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an eviction order for rental arrears.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the Board relied on correspondence introduced by the landlord's paralegal without cross-examination, and that the Board placed an unfair burden on them to prove they did not receive the hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was entitled to admit the reliable documentary evidence under its procedural rules and properly weighed the evidence on a balance of probabilities.

The Court also found no error in the Board's decision to hear the review request before addressing the landlord's breach of an interim order.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of MacLeod RSJ dated May 17, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for a stay and for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and leave to appeal paragraph 3 of the order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding whether the motions judge erred in deciding an evidentiary issue on a final basis.

Costs of $7,200 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving party tribunal brought a motion to strike an application for judicial review of an interim decision that removed the responding party's counsel due to an alleged appearance of a conflict of interest.

The tribunal argued the judicial review was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application would fail, as there was a reasonable argument that exceptional circumstances existed to justify reviewing the interim decision.