Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving party, Stefano Carella, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated February 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order was made as to costs due to an outstanding issue regarding whether the moving party was capable of instructing counsel.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Davies J. dated May 13, 2020.

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

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order that directed estate funds to be paid out of court and removed an estate trustee.

The appellant sought directions and an accounting, effectively attempting to secure funds for a counterclaim against the estate.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding the original motion was improperly brought and the appellant had not established the prerequisites for a Mareva injunction to hold the funds as security.

Case management endorsement scheduling a motion to determine whether a motion for leave to appeal a carriage decision in a proposed securities class action is stayed by an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court directed the responding party to bring a motion to stay the leave application, to be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Condominium Authority of Ontario.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and provided procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and costs submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrator to direct the withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings against a police officer.

Following case management teleconferences, the parties agreed in principle to a schedule for the application and a tentative resolution regarding a stay.

The court issued a case management endorsement setting the hearing for October 27, 2020, and providing procedural directions for the filing of materials.

During a case management teleconference for a motion for leave to appeal, the responding party objected to the inclusion of a previously disallowed affidavit and email communications in the moving party's materials.

The court ruled that the disallowed affidavit could remain in the record solely to assess the motions judge's decision to strike it, but not for the truth of its contents.

However, the court struck out the email communications because they were not before the motions judge and raised a challenge not previously raised.

A case management conference was held to address an issue regarding whether the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board had been settled.

The court directed the parties to exchange materials on the settlement issue and place them before the panel scheduled to hear the appeal.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a final order.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and set out a timetable for the exchange of materials, including the establishment of an electronic drop box for document sharing.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.

The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that denied their claim for over $1.2 million in costs following a lengthy proceeding.

The underlying application concerned a nuisance claim against a greenhouse and anaerobic digester operated by a court-appointed receiver.

The Board had found that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct and declined to award costs to either side.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Board's discretionary costs decision.

The court issued procedural directions in an appeal following unsuccessful attempts to schedule a remote case management conference due to the self-represented appellant's technological and accommodation challenges.

The court ordered the parties to proceed in writing, setting strict deadlines for the appellant to serve her appeal record and any requests to introduce fresh evidence, emphasizing that appeals are not a retrial of the original case.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Skarica J. dated February 4, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving parties.

A case management conference was held to schedule two motions for leave to appeal a decision appointing carriage counsel in a class action.

The court established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, directed the creation of a joint record and electronic drop box, and ordered that the motions proceed in writing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of the application following the denial of a motion for leave to intervene.

The court directed that the application proceed by ZOOM videoconference on July 31, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

A case management conference was held to schedule and provide directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard by a panel of three judges via ZOOM videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, using an electronic drop box.

Case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for two motions for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motions to proceed by videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The moving party, former counsel for the applicant, sought leave to intervene as an added party in a judicial review application.

He claimed a pecuniary interest in being paid for his legal services and a reputational interest in defending himself against negative comments made by the hearing panel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's interests were entirely aligned with those of the applicant, who was already advancing the same arguments.

Furthermore, the court held that granting intervention would dramatically expand the issues and record, causing undue delay, and that the motion was brought too late in the proceedings.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule three motions for leave to appeal a decision of Morgan J. The Divisional Court set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials and directed that the motions proceed in writing before a single panel.

The court also provided detailed instructions for the creation of an electronic drop box, the formatting of electronic documents, and the filing of factums and compendiums in light of the COVID-19 suspension of ordinary court operations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court which upheld an assessment officer's decision regarding solicitor's fees.

The appellant argued the assessment officer erred by double-counting factors in the Cohen v. Kealey analysis and in finding the underlying case was of average complexity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and noting that complexity was not a substantial factor since the solicitor accomplished nothing of value for the client.