ODC 2026

The applicant sought a stay of a zoning bylaw amendment that permitted a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Ottawa, pending its application for judicial review.

The respondents opposed the stay and moved to strike portions of the application and the applicant's affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, striking the challenge to the Municipal Support Resolution as statute-barred, striking portions of the application that impermissibly sought reasonableness review of the bylaw, and striking several affidavits and portions of affidavits that contained impermissible opinion evidence from unqualified laypersons.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) regarding his complaint against two police officers.

The applicant alleged the Director's decision was procedurally unfair due to a lack of disclosure and unreasonable due to factual inaccuracies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant received adequate procedural fairness as he was provided with the information the Director relied upon.

The court also held that the Director's decision was reasonable, noting that the applicant's arguments amounted to minor missteps that did not undermine the substance of the decision.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they unjustifiably terminated and repudiated a residential renovation contract.

The trial judge awarded the respondent contractor $105,804.92 plus costs.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the trial judge's exclusion of their proposed expert, interpretation of the contract, factual findings on completion percentage, and credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also denied.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the applicant's 1,127-page application record in a judicial review of a zoning bylaw amendment for supportive housing.

The applicant sought to introduce affidavit evidence regarding other City projects to demonstrate a pattern of closed-mindedness and lack of consultation.

The court partially granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, argumentative, inflammatory, or related to post-decision events, while permitting some evidence regarding the applicant's claims of bias and an improperly restricted record to remain for the panel's consideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for alleged sexual harassment and age discrimination by an assistant manager at a Goodlife gym.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the test for sexual harassment, made unreasonable evidentiary findings, and erred in finding Goodlife met its duty to investigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's credibility assessments, factual findings, and conclusions regarding the duty to investigate were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The purchaser of a pre-construction condominium unit sought to rescind the agreement of purchase and sale after the developer added three stories to the building.

The parties proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator found in favour of the developer and determined his jurisdiction arose from the parties' consent under the Arbitration Act, 1991, not the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA).

The purchaser brought proceedings to the Divisional Court for judicial review and appeal.

The developer moved to quash the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that because the arbitrator determined his jurisdiction was under the Arbitration Act, 1991, that Act governed the appeal routes.

Since the purchaser had waived his appeal rights in the arbitration agreement, the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's order striking its statement of defence and counterclaim due to a years-long pattern of delay and non-compliance with court orders, including a peremptory 'last-chance' order.

The appellant argued that only the counterclaim should have been struck, as the outstanding production orders related solely to it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's application of the Falcon Lumber principles and concluding that the 'nuclear option' of striking the pleadings was a proportionate response to the appellant's deliberate and repeated defaults.

The moving party, a third party in the action, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Kimmel J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of two Board decisions finding she breached the Trustees' Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information and imposing 90-day meeting suspensions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications to quash the decisions, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, no Charter violations, and that the decisions were reasonable.

However, the court found the 90-day sanctions unreasonable as they appeared to rely on a new statutory regime not yet applicable, and varied the sanctions to the 38 days already served.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Braid J. dated October 9, 2025.

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

The tenant brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court case management judge's order pending a panel motion to review that order under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The tenant had not paid rent in a long time and admitted under oath to being unable to pay rent as it falls due or make payments toward substantial arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and ordered the statutory stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order to be lifted immediately, noting that tenants are not entitled to rent-free living at the landlord's expense through the expedient of an appeal.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the landlord.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of their stored goods due to unpaid storage fees.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the extensive history of unsuccessful motions and appeals across multiple courts.

Finding the proceedings to be a collateral attack on previous orders and a blatant abuse of the court's process, the court dismissed the proceeding as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1).

The appellants filed notices of appeal in the Divisional Court from a Family Court order that granted sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and a $452,000 equalization payment, and declared a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, it lacked jurisdiction because the equalization payment exceeded $50,000 and the order was made under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Law Act.

The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

The appellant's children were brought to a place of safety by the Children's Aid Society.

The protection application was later withdrawn and the parties reached an agreement.

The appellant subsequently brought a motion for a declaration that the CAS acted unlawfully by not obtaining a warrant, and sought costs.

The motion judge declined to rule on the warrant issue and declined to order costs.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision to decline declaratory relief or in her application of costs principles.

The applicant insurer appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision finding that the respondent, a 19-year-old student athlete who was rendered tetraplegic in a motor vehicle accident, was principally dependent on his sister for care and therefore an insured person under her automobile insurance policy.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator identified the correct legal principles regarding dependency and reasonably applied them to the evidence, which showed the respondent relied on his sister for physical and emotional support despite living away for school.

The appeal and judicial review were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent dealership $15,000 in liquidated damages for breaching a non-export agreement (NEA) attached to a vehicle bill of sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed several grounds of appeal relating to procedural fairness, bias, and evidentiary rulings.

However, the appeal was allowed on the basis that the NEA violated the Consumer Protection Act.

The court found that the NEA's waiver of rights, which held the consumer strictly liable for the vehicle's export even if stolen, constituted an unfair practice.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The self-represented applicant moved for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his claim that the landlord substantially interfered with his reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit following a flood.

The applicant argued he discovered a documentary inconsistency regarding an estimate for drying equipment.

The Divisional Court denied the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish apparent grounds for relief, as the LTB's decision was reasonable and there was no procedural unfairness.

The court also noted the applicant's significant delay in raising the issue.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for disability-based discrimination.

The applicant alleged she was terminated after disclosing her bipolar disorder and requesting accommodations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent employer to file a second, more detailed witness statement during the hearing without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the witness on the discrepancies between his two statements.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers that revoked her teaching certificate for professional misconduct related to off-duty social media posts.

The appellant argued the penalty ignored her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee committed a fatal error of law by failing to conduct a proper Doré analysis regarding the Charter implications of disciplining the appellant for her speech.

The matter was remitted back for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination application against her employer, union, and others.

The HRTO had dismissed the application against the employer due to delay, finding no good faith reason to extend the one-year time limit under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, and dismissed the claims against the other respondents for lack of factual basis or jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness in the HRTO proceedings and held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.