ODC 2025

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and a related costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the City of Vaughan and $5,000 to the other responding parties.

The appellant sought to appeal an order dismissing his motion to vary a final family law order.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 that the appeal may be dismissed as frivolous.

The appellant argued that an annulment of his marriage extinguished his obligations under the prior order.

The court found the appeal devoid of merit, noting the prior order remained valid despite the subsequent annulment, and dismissed the appeal.

The successful appellant on a Small Claims Court appeal sought to settle the terms of the order.

The respondent argued that because the original costs award was under the $3,500 appeal limit set by O. Reg. 626/00, the appellant was still required to pay the $1,600 costs ordered at first instance despite winning the appeal.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that when an appeal is allowed, the costs order below is set aside.

The regulatory appeal limit does not preserve a costs order when the underlying decision is overturned.

The appellants appealed an order made at a case conference holding them liable for tax penalties and interest resulting from their oppressive conduct.

They argued the application judge lacked authority to make a substantive order at a case conference and denied them procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that Rule 50.13(6) permits judges to issue directions, including substantive orders, at case conferences in appropriate circumstances to promote efficiency.

The court found no procedural unfairness, as the appellants were informed of the conference's purpose and had the opportunity to submit materials.

The appeal was allowed in part only to correct an agreed-upon calculation error.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought an interlocutory motion to add five individuals as co-applicants to her application for judicial review, which challenged the municipality's requirement to install a smart water meter at her property.

She also sought to permit future applicants to be added without leave and to compel the municipality to respond before the next case conference.

The court dismissed the request to add parties, finding the proposed co-applicants lacked private or public interest standing and their addition would needlessly complicate the proceeding.

However, the court granted the request to compel an early response from the municipality to avoid further delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of a paragraph of a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted both leave to appeal and the stay, awarding costs of $2,500 to the moving party.

The parties were directed to schedule a case management conference and consider whether the appeal might become moot pending a motion to vary.

The applicant, an occupational therapist, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering her to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP).

The investigation focused on two specific billing issues, and the applicant was advised by the College to restrict her response to those issues.

However, the ICRC imposed the SCERP based on broader practice management concerns not explicitly raised in the investigation.

The Divisional Court found the process procedurally unfair, as the applicant was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to the broader concerns.

The application was allowed, the ICRC's decision was quashed, and the matter was not remitted for reconsideration.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario brought an application by way of stated case against the respondents for failing to comply with summonses issued under the Insurance Act.

The respondents, who were being investigated for acting as unlicensed insurance agents, failed to attend the examinations and did not appear at the hearing.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents intentionally failed to comply with clear and unequivocal summonses of which they had knowledge.

The court ordered each respondent to pay a $5,000 fine, plus an additional $1,000 daily fine until they complete their examinations, and ordered them to arrange and attend the examinations.

The appellant estate trustee appealed a decision directing payment to the respondent for expenses paid on behalf of the deceased's estate.

The appellant argued the claim was barred by s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 38(3) applies to wrongs committed by the deceased, not ordinary estate debts.

The Court also held that the limitation period for reimbursement did not begin to run until the respondent made a claim to the appointed trustee and the trustee refused to pay.

The moving party brought two motions for leave to appeal in a family law dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the order of Bezaire J. dated May 2, 2025, with no costs awarded.

The court granted the motion for leave to appeal the order of Hebner J. dated May 13, 2025, specifically regarding the suspension of the moving party's parenting time, with costs left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding the failure to return a cat.

The respondents sought to dismiss the appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and due to delay.

The appellant moved for an extension of time to perfect the appeal, citing financial inability to pay for transcripts.

The Divisional Court declined to dismiss the appeal under Rule 2.1 and granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal, though for a shorter period than the one year requested by the appellant.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that apportioned 35% liability to them for a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent had rear-ended the appellants' vehicle after it allegedly stopped suddenly.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge made a palpable and overriding factual error by conflating the parties' evidence, leading to an unwarranted adverse credibility finding against the appellants.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the presumption of negligence against the rear driver, as a sudden stop within a lane of traffic does not constitute an unusual circumstance sufficient to rebut the reverse onus.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was found 100% liable.

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The appellant sought to quash a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the appellant was given notice of the hearing, did not request an in-person hearing or accommodation, and did not raise procedural unfairness in his reconsideration request.

The court noted that the decisions do not bar the appellant's claims for attendant care benefits or a special award relating to the timing of non-earner benefits payments.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring $4,000,000 from the proceeds of the sale of their property to be paid into court as security for the respondents' damages claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge erred in law by applying the general test for an interlocutory injunction rather than the stringent test for a Mareva injunction.

The court held that there was no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation, no undertaking as to damages was provided, and the alternative argument under Rule 45.02 failed because the respondents sought damages rather than an interest in a specific fund.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by a children's aid society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant had alleged that the child was physically abused by school staff.

The society conducted a community caregiver investigation and concluded the allegations were not verified.

The Board reviewed the society's handling of the complaint and ordered the society to provide better written reasons, but otherwise dismissed the applicant's procedural complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that both the society and the Board afforded the applicant procedural fairness and that their decisions were reasonable.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of McGee J. dated March 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties did not provide a costs outline.