ODC 2026

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board but failed to file materials and indicated an intention to discontinue the appeal.

The tenant appeared self-represented at the hearing and consented to the dismissal of the appeal.

The respondent landlord sought substantial indemnity costs of $11,255, arguing the appeal was an abuse of process to delay eviction.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, instead ordering partial indemnity costs of $7,500, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the work required by the landlord's counsel.

The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the affidavit evidence would be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record if no transcript was available.

The court suggested that seeking an order for the production of the hearing transcript would be the most efficient way to resolve the evidentiary dispute.

The applicants sought judicial review of an administrative directive redirecting frozen racing funds to the benefit of the Ontario racing industry rather than re-distributing them race by race.

The court held that the applicants had no remaining right or interest to challenge the directive because the earlier forfeiture order had finally disposed of the entire frozen account and any argument that some funds were from non-purse sources should have been raised in the original proceedings.

The court also held that judicial review is discretionary and declined relief because the application was perfected more than six years after commencement, the delay was excessive and inadequately explained, and prejudice was presumed.

The application was dismissed with agreed costs.

The 92-year-old appellant suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits to modify her daughter's home, where she intended to move to receive 24-hour care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, holding that the appellant first had to prove her existing condominium could not be modified.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by imposing an unlegislated threshold and adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of 'existing home' under section 16 of the SABS.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the claimed benefits immediately.

The appellants, former tenants, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision dismissing their request for a review of an order granting the landlords $12,349.03 in compensation.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they never received notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LTB review member erred in law by concluding the appellants should have monitored the LTB portal to discover the hearing date.

The Court held that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act guarantees reasonable notice of a hearing, and the responsibility for providing notice cannot be shifted to the parties.

The LTB order was set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of two interim decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding his allegations of discrimination against the respondent College.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature because the Tribunal process was ongoing.

Despite the applicant's submissions alleging bias and procedural flaws, the court held that absent exceptional circumstances, it should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings.

The application was dismissed as patently premature.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review case management directions that struck his 267-page appeal factum and required him to obtain trial transcripts for a Small Claims Court appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the case management judge's directions reasonable and necessary given the moving party's flagrant breach of the Rules respecting transcripts and factums.

The court extended the deadline for the moving party to order transcripts but warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of three by-law enforcement orders issued by the respondent township regarding a bamboo hedge, stored building materials, and a front fence extension.

The applicant argued the orders were unreasonable and that the enforcement process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the bamboo had grown into a non-compliant fence, the stored bricks and stones were building materials, and the trellis additions extended the fence height beyond permitted limits.

The court found no procedural unfairness or bias, noting that any potential unfairness from the denial of a review hearing was cured by the judicial review proceeding itself.

The tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering eviction for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in law by relying on incorrect figures, applying the wrong test under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and breaching procedural fairness by correcting clerical errors in the decision without notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding that the LTB properly corrected the clerical errors under its rules, considered all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction, and made no reviewable errors of law or procedural fairness.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the unreported decision of V. Christie J. dated October 17, 2025.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated February 23, 2026.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, with no costs awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Judge to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion, noting that under section 17 of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from an Associate Judge's order lies as of right to a Superior Court Judge, not the Divisional Court.

Reduced costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party because they failed to use Rule 2.1 to dispose of the motion summarily.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal a decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant mother appealed an enforcement order that granted the respondent father final decision-making authority over their son's medical care and imposed fines on the mother for missed parenting time.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a substantive remedial order under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to address the child's crisis, it was an error to make the order final rather than temporary pending a motion to change.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to be temporary and capping the accrued fines at $1,000.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his application to terminate a tenancy for personal use under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlord argued the LTB erred in law by considering the availability of other units when assessing his good faith intention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while motives are largely irrelevant to the genuine intent to reside, the LTB may consider a landlord's conduct and motives to draw inferences about good faith.

The LTB's finding that the landlord lacked good faith was a finding of mixed fact and law, which is not subject to appeal under s. 210.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim against an immigration consultant for failing to obtain a US visa.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's requirement that the appellants provide their own certified interpreter, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no error in dismissing the claim due to the lack of expert evidence on the standard of care.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondents to sanction their apparent use of Generative AI, which resulted in the citation of non-existent case law and rules in their factum.

The applicant sought judicial review of WSIAT decisions that dismissed his appeals regarding the quantification of his benefits for a workplace knee injury.

The applicant raised numerous procedural and substantive objections, including allegations of Charter and human rights violations, bias, and unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's procedures were fair, its jurisdictional findings were correct, and its factual determinations were reasonable given the evidence and the applicant's refusal to participate in an oral hearing.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that her application for statutory accident benefits was time-barred.

The appellant argued the insurer's notice of refusal did not comply with s. 54 of the SABS because it failed to detail all levels of appeal and misleadingly stated a hard two-year limitation period without explaining discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 54 only requires notice of the right to dispute the refusal at the Tribunal, not subsequent appeal rights.

The Court also found the notice was not misleading, as detailing discoverability principles could detract from the clarity of the warning and confuse claimants.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision awarding rent arrears to the landlord.

The original Board member resigned before issuing a decision, prompting the Board chair to order a new hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the new hearing and subsequently appealed, arguing the Board erred by not issuing the original member's decision and that he was denied procedural fairness due to lost exhibits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or denial of procedural fairness, as the Board has statutory authority to order a hearing de novo.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a municipal by-law authorizing the sale of a surplus strip of land to an adjacent property owner, and moved to review a single judge's decision denying leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court declined to consider the merits of the judicial review application, finding the sale was a private transaction of limited public character, the applicants had delayed in pursuing their interest, and the transaction had already closed with a bona fide purchaser for value.

The court also dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation, as the applicants could not establish a triable interest in the land.