Divisional Court

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The protection application was later withdrawn and the parties reached an agreement.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

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 appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered an intracranial brain contusion.

The insurer placed her in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), limiting her benefits to $3,500.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision, finding that the definition of 'minor injury' includes all contusions, including brain contusions.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in law by focusing on the degree of impairment rather than the nature of the injury.

The court held that an intracranial brain contusion is not a 'minor injury' under the SABS, allowed the appeal, and ordered the appellant removed from the MIG.

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 appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order discharging and vacating its construction lien.

The motion judge had found that the lien expired prior to perfection because the contract was terminated or abandoned more than 150 days before the certificate of action was registered.

On appeal, the contractor argued the motion judge erred in finding termination or abandonment and improperly used enhanced fact-finding powers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings of termination and abandonment, and concluding that the motion judge correctly applied the evidentiary burden without resorting to enhanced fact-finding powers.

The appellant, an environmental advocacy group, appealed decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct four natural gas projects.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by denying its requests to file proposed survey and expert evidence and to convene a technical conference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test by balancing the probative value of the evidence against regulatory efficiency.

Applying the Baker factors, the Court held that the appellant, as an intervenor, was owed a duty of fairness at the lower end of the spectrum, and the Board's procedural choices did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

The moving party sought leave to appeal multiple parenting and costs orders.

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

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing to file materials in accordance with the Rules, including seeking leave to file a factum with a larger word count and a reply factum.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment and directed the parties to attend a case conference to establish a timetable for perfecting the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,907.60.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The appellant failed to perfect his appeal and advised the court he would not attend the hearing.

After waiting for the appellant to appear, the respondent landlord requested the matter be dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision ordering the removal of a dog and finding violations of parking rules.

The appellant argued the CAT misapprehended evidence regarding a service dog exemption and raised new arguments including equitable estoppel and bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the CAT's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence, and declined to entertain arguments not raised before the tribunal.

The appellant failed to perfect his appeal and advised the court he would not attend the hearing.

After waiting for the appellant to appear, the respondent landlord requested the matter be dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellants' appeal from a decision of the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was adjourned to April 14, 2026, for a half-day hearing, through no fault of the parties.

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.