ODC 2025

The moving party brought a motion to set aside a previous decision dismissing his proceedings and sought the recusal of a registrar and six judges.

The court reviewed the motion under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motion lacked merit, served no reasonable purpose, and was part of a continuing pattern of abusive litigation behaviour, the court dismissed the motion without requiring written submissions.

The tenant appealed an Eviction Order and a Review Order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which upheld her eviction for non-payment of rent and dismissed her claim for a rent abatement due to an HVAC noise issue.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding when the noise was resolved and whether the landlord acted reasonably.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court also upheld the Review Member's refusal to admit new evidence.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal of an interlocutory injunction order.

The underlying dispute involved competing oppression applications between 50/50 shareholders of a condominium project.

The Divisional Court found that the injunction order was interlocutory, not final, as it merely preserved the status quo pending the merits hearing.

The court reaffirmed that section 255 of the Business Corporations Act does not provide an appeal as of right for interlocutory orders.

Furthermore, because the standstill period had expired, the proposed appeal was moot.

The motion to quash was granted.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a Deputy Judge.

The responding party requested that the moving party be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and declined to declare the moving party a vexatious litigant due to a lack of supporting submissions.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Chalmers J. dated July 12, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not file any materials, no costs were ordered.

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while there was no breach of procedural fairness, the Adjudicator's findings regarding the appellant's whole person impairment under Criterion 6 of the AMA Guides were unreasonable.

Specifically, the Adjudicator unreasonably dismissed evidence of double vision, peripheral neuropathy, and medication side effects.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant lawyer appealed decisions of the Law Society of Ontario finding him incapacitated due to a delusional disorder and suspending him indefinitely.

The appellant had initiated numerous Federal Court actions alleging acquaintances were government spies, leading to him being declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of expert psychiatric evidence, the dismissal of motions to call witnesses and admit fresh evidence, or the tribunal's handling of the appellant's arguments.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against his ophthalmologist.

The applicant suffered a rare complication following cataract surgery, resulting in loss of sight in his left eye.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's investigation was adequate and the HPARB's decision was reasonable, noting that the ICRC's mandate is to screen complaints, not to determine civil liability or causation.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order that he complete a specified continuing education or remediation program and undergo practice monitoring.

The order arose from a complaint regarding the installation of video cameras in his dental office and concerns about patient privacy and informed consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Board to uphold the disposition given the inadequacy of the applicant's patient consent forms and signage, even though the new cameras were not yet operational.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) finding that two OPP officers committed discreditable conduct during a sexual assault investigation.

The IPRD had concluded that assigning an officer with a perceived association to a specific detachment created a potential conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the IPRD's decision, finding it unreasonable because the IPRD applied a subjective standard based on the complainant's perception rather than the required objective standard of a reasonable member of the community.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to exercise their gatekeeping function regarding the respondent's expert witness.

The expert admitted during cross-examination that he did not write his entire report, lacked experience with the specific type of insulation installed, and had altered the scene before taking photographs.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to properly scrutinize and exclude the flawed expert evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The moving parties, comprising various social media companies including Meta, Snap, and TikTok entities, brought motions for leave to appeal the substantive and costs orders of Leiper J. The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal without costs and directed the parties to provide an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's orders for unpaid wages to the individual respondents.

The applicant argued the respondents were never employees and raised issues of procedural fairness regarding witness coaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably relied on documentary evidence due to credibility issues on both sides, and held there was no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings or its failure to address an alternative argument not raised before it.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision denying her an extension of time to request a review of an order finding her jointly liable for rent arrears.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she received no notice of the original LTB hearing and only learned of the order months later when served with a civil claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LTB's failure to address the central issue of procedural fairness in its reasons constituted an error of law.

The matter was remitted to the LTB to determine whether the appellant was accorded natural justice.

The applicants sought judicial review and appealed decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).

The IPC had found that ransomware attacks encrypting the applicants' data containers constituted an unauthorized 'use' and 'loss' of personal information, triggering statutory duties to notify affected individuals under PHIPA and the CYFSA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications and appeal, holding that the IPC's interpretation was reasonable and purposive.

The court found that the encryption of data, which made it temporarily unavailable, amounted to 'handling' or 'dealing with' the information, thereby constituting an unauthorized use that required notification regardless of whether the data was actually viewed or exfiltrated.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits and dismissing his bad faith claim against the insurer.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the application but dismissed it on the merits, finding the LAT's conclusions regarding insufficient medical evidence and procedural choices were reasonable.

The court also held that punitive damages are unavailable on judicial review of LAT decisions.

The application was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the insurer.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him from his basement apartment so the landlords' daughter could occupy the unit.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused a further adjournment after his lawyer withdrew, and that the eviction was in bad faith and part of a harassment campaign involving the RCMP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant another adjournment given the history of delays, and holding that the tenant's other arguments raised questions of fact rather than questions of law.

The applicant, a mortgagee who sold a newly constructed home under power of sale, sought judicial review of Tarion's decision that it was a 'vendor' responsible for statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding Tarion's finding that a mortgagee selling under power of sale is a vendor, relying on established precedent.

The court also rejected arguments that the home was sold 'as-is', noting the Act prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and declined to consider new arguments not raised before Tarion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal's Appeal Division, which upheld a finding that he failed to cooperate with Law Society investigations between July 2023 and January 2024.

The appellant argued that the underlying decisions made factual errors and sought to introduce fresh evidence showing the investigations were eventually closed with a note thanking him for his cooperation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant's responses during the relevant period were neither substantive nor complete.

The fresh evidence was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to a later time period.