ODC 2026

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The proposed intervenors, three regional municipalities, brought a motion for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The underlying appeal involved a private dispute between an expropriating authority and a landowner over the market value of expropriated land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate they would make a useful and distinct contribution not already offered by the appellant.

The court noted that the intervention would unnecessarily broaden and complicate the private dispute by introducing issues related to the capital planning of other municipalities.

The appellants were victims of a wire fraud and sought to freeze the recipient bank account.

A case management judge ordered the parties to attend a case conference to address the freeze and the account holder's motion to release funds.

However, a different motion judge subsequently granted the account holder's motion in writing without notice to the appellants, permitting the release of $10,000 per month.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by making an order that conflicted with the prior case management direction and breached procedural fairness by refusing to reconsider the order once notified of the lack of service.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his applications alleging unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and unfair labour practices under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had been terminated after refusing to remove a social media post criticizing his employer, T&T Supermarket.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and within its jurisdiction.

The court declined to interfere with the Board's credibility findings and noted that the applicant's procedural fairness arguments should have been raised through a reconsideration request to the Board.

The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.

The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The tenants sought to appeal a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board after filing multiple unsuccessful requests for review.

The Divisional Court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a consent order requires leave of the court, which the tenants had not sought.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, terminating the statutory stay of eviction, without prejudice to the tenants' right to seek an extension of time and leave to appeal.

The appellant initiated an appeal to the Divisional Court from a Superior Court decision that dismissed her action against her former husband's counsel under Rule 2.1.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting that an appeal from a dismissal of an action in the Superior Court lies to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

The appellant failed to address the jurisdictional issue or request a transfer to the Court of Appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1 for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from an order upholding the assessment of her former solicitor's accounts.

The moving party had initially filed her appeal in the Court of Appeal, which lacked jurisdiction, and engaged in a lengthy series of meritless motions and collateral attacks despite clear judicial directions to seek an extension in the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the extraordinary delay, no genuine merit to the proposed appeal, and significant prejudice to the responding party due to the moving party's vexatious conduct and failure to pay multiple prior costs awards.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting the respondent an extension of time to file an amended statement of claim.

The respondent had brought a motion to vary a previous order under Rule 59.06, but the motion judge granted relief under Rule 3.02(1) without prior notice to the appellants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the appellants were denied the opportunity to file evidence of prejudice caused by the delay.

The matter was remitted to a different motion judge.

The moving party, a third party in the underlying action, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraphs 7-11 of the order of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting attendant care benefits to the respondent, who suffered from severe autism and was injured in a minor motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias because the LAT adjudicator had a history of, and continued, public advocacy for autism caregivers after his appointment.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the adjudicator's ongoing advocacy efforts following his appointment raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in a case specifically determining attendant care benefits for an autistic claimant.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an appeal concerning the interpretation of 'minor injury' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that OTLA's proposed submissions overlapped substantially with the appellant's factum and that the perspective and interests were adequately represented without OTLA's involvement.

The court concluded that OTLA was unlikely to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

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

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.