ODC 2025

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated March 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Centa J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay agreed costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,900.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his motion to set aside a noting in default in a slip and fall action brought by the respondent tenant.

The Deputy Judge had refused to set aside the noting in default, citing prejudice to the respondent who had already collected the default judgment funds by withholding rent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to apply the three-part test under Rule 11.06 of the Small Claims Court Rules, improperly ignoring a prior order that had set aside an earlier default judgment due to improper service, and considering irrelevant factors such as the respondent's premature garnishment and potential claims against third parties.

The noting in default was set aside and the appellant was granted leave to file a statement of defence.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge dated March 7 and April 8, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to revoke a special event permit for a cultural festival after violent protests erupted on the first day.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot since the 2023 festival dates had passed and the 2024 festival proceeded without incident.

The court also noted that the City's decision was substantively reasonable given the immediate risk to public safety, and declined to rule on the jurisdictional and Charter issues.

The University of Waterloo sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering it to implement a Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) pilot project as a systemic remedy for discriminating against an applicant with learning disabilities.

The University argued the Tribunal improperly relied on inadmissible expert evidence and that the remedy violated its institutional autonomy over admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal did not improperly rely on inadmissible expert opinion and that the PLAR pilot project was a tailored, proportional remedy that respected the University's academic standards while addressing the specific discrimination suffered by the respondent.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and that the landlord's application was void for omitting a prior N12 Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination regarding receipt of the Notice of Hearing was an unappealable finding of fact.

The court also held it was bound by prior precedent regarding the validity of the application.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report and the subsequent municipal council decision suspending her salary for 90 days.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached sections 10 and 15 of the Code of Conduct through social media posts following a defeated motion regarding flag-raising.

The Divisional Court held that while the finding of a breach of section 15 (discreditable conduct) was reasonable, the interpretation of section 10 (improper use of influence) to prohibit continued advocacy after a council decision or advocacy on matters outside council's purview was unreasonable.

The report and council decision were quashed and remitted for reconsideration of the penalty.

Both the moving parties and the responding parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the issue was moot in the context of the case.

The responding parties' motion for leave to appeal was granted, with costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision ordering eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued he was unable to pay rent due to injuries sustained when his apartment ceiling collapsed, which is the subject of a separate Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) personal injury claim.

Due to procedural errors by the tenant's counsel, the LTB did not adjudicate the merits of the rent abatement or stay request.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's findings on rent arrears but quashed the denial of abatement and stayed the eviction order, directing that the abatement and stay issues be determined by the SCJ alongside the personal injury claim to prevent injustice.

The appellant retained the respondent solicitor for a residential property purchase and later sought to assess his final account.

The assessment officer found the requisition was out of time under the Solicitors Act, and a motion judge subsequently dismissed the appellant's motion to permit the assessment to proceed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the account had been paid and the appellant failed to demonstrate any special circumstances under section 11 of the Solicitors Act to justify an assessment.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action against a temporary help agency for alleged employee misclassification.

The motion judge had found that the proposed common issues regarding whether the agency was an employer under the Employment Standards Act or at common law lacked sufficient commonality and required individual determinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no systemic commonality among the putative class members' arrangements.

Leave to appeal the costs award of $333,114.05 was also denied.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Gibson J. dated December 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party, acting self-represented, brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 10, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,000.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) to screen out his police conduct complaint.

The applicant also moved to set aside a motion judge's decision refusing to add certain internal LECA documents to the record of proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding the scope of the record.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, concluding that the screening decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Complaints Director reasonably exercised his discretion to consolidate the applicant's complaint with an ongoing statutory review of a related prior complaint.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision dismissing its application to remove a second dog from the respondent's unit.

The CAT found that the respondent's partner required the service dog as an accommodation for a disability under the Human Rights Code, and awarded $15,000 in damages for discriminatory treatment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the CAT did not err in law in its accommodation framework and did not breach procedural fairness in awarding damages or a common expense credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of Brownstone J. dated February 18 and March 17, 2025.

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

The applicants, a reporter and a newspaper, sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision that upheld the refusal to disclose the names and badge numbers of police officers subject to misconduct complaints.

The applicants argued the IPC Adjudicator failed to consider their freedom of expression rights under section 2(b) of the Charter when applying the public interest override in section 23 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the Adjudicator erred by dismissing the Charter argument solely because a formal notice of constitutional question was not filed.

The application for judicial review was granted, the IPC decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellants appealed a default judgment decision that awarded them $2,260 for a breached website development contract but denied their claims for $90,000 in lost revenue, a mandatory order, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The court upheld the finding that the appellants failed to mitigate their damages by letting their website expire instead of hiring another service provider, and affirmed the discretionary denial of the mandatory order due to the disproportionate nature of the litigation.