ODC 2025

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the corporate responding party and $5,000 to the individual responding parties.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Brampton Appeal Tribunal upholding a Property Standards Order under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The appeal was brought before a panel of the Divisional Court.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction, as section 15.3(4) of the Act requires such appeals to be heard by a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

The matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review in the Divisional Court to remove a parenting coordinator/arbitrator appointed under a consent order.

The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the Arbitration Act, an application to remove an arbitrator must be brought in the Superior Court of Justice or Family Court, not the Divisional Court.

The court also noted it would decline to exercise its discretion even if it had jurisdiction, as the proper route is under the Family Law Rules and the Arbitration Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal refusing to recuse its adjudicators for alleged bias.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was an abuse of process because the tribunal proceedings were ongoing.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application as patently premature.

The appellant husband sought to appeal a final order from a family law trial made under the Divorce Act to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act did not extend to this final order, as the payments ordered exceeded $50,000 and the order was not made by a Family Court judge or under an Ontario statute.

The appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the clear lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of J.R. McCarthy J. dated June 10, 2025.

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

The appellant appealed a family court order dismissing her application for $745,286 in retroactive spousal support for the period of 2015 to 2022.

The parties separated in 2006 and had an informal financial arrangement until 2015.

The trial judge found the appellant's financial evidence unreliable and concluded she failed to establish an ongoing entitlement to compensatory support after 2015.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the trial judge's credibility assessments and confirming that the burden of proving entitlement on an initial application rests with the claimant, regardless of delay.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and that the respondent insurer was not required to assign a claim number.

The appellant's policy with the respondent had lapsed prior to the motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that anyone involved in an accident in Ontario has SABS coverage and that the respondent was required to pay benefits pending a priority dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's interpretation that 'a particular motor vehicle liability policy' refers to a specific policy, not a generic one.

The court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding page limits and adjudicator expertise.

The appellant defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the payment of settlement funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a defendant who pays settlement funds directly to a plaintiff in the face of a Solicitors Act charging order does so at its peril.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party solicitors.

The 92-year-old appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying a disputed treatment plan.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and, citing exceptional circumstances, declined to remit the matter back to the Tribunal.

Instead, the court ordered the respondent to pay the disputed plan costs of $365,257.00 with immediate effect, noting that further delay would deny the appellant any benefit from the funds.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the classification of multi-unit rental residential properties under a realty tax incentive scheme.

The Board had interpreted the phrase 'a building permit' in O. Reg. 282/98 to mean any building permit issued for the development, allowing the respondents to benefit from the incentive despite the project being well underway.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in principle by failing to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh determination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

The Director had concluded that the Act was not engaged by agreements between the University of Windsor and student groups regarding protest encampments, which included a provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's conclusion that the University was not 'engaging in business' under the Act to be reasonable.

The court also upheld the Director's alternative finding that the agreements did not mandate a refusal to employ or promote, as required by section 4(1)3(ii) of the Act.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,882.50.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a December 10, 2024 decision of Faieta J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specifically on the issue of the disclosure of counselling and therapy records.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties, lawyers who drafted a will subject to a lawsuit, sought an extension of time to serve and file a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The court applied the four-part test for an extension of time, finding that the moving parties formed the intention to appeal within the time limit, had a reasonable explanation for the modest 13-day delay, and that there was no prejudice to the responding party.

The court concluded that the justice of the case favoured granting the extension and reserved costs to the panel hearing the leave motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Committee of Adjustment granting his neighbour's applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

The applicant, an adjacent property owner, argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing to bring the judicial review, as third parties have no statutory right of appeal under the Planning Act.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant was afforded the requisite low level of procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were adequate.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Penman J. dated May 16, 2025.

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 sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,600 to the responding party.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision approving an Above-Guideline Rent Increase, arguing procedural fairness was denied when the LTB expedited the hearing ex parte and denied an in-person hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB properly exercised its discretion under its rules to shorten time due to harassment of the landlord's staff.

The Court also held the LTB did not err in ordering a written hearing, as the tenants failed to raise any Human Rights Code accommodation requests at the initial hearing.

The appellant residential tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) voidable eviction order arising from his refusal to pay a rent increase.

The tenant argued he did not receive proper notice of the increase, that the LTB order failed to account for recent rent payments, and that the LTB lacked jurisdiction due to an outstanding Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice issue was a question of mixed fact and law outside its jurisdiction, the tenant misunderstood the legal effect of the voidable order, and the LTB retained jurisdiction over the rent increase.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and awarded costs to the respondent landlord.