Divisional Court

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions: a default decision finding it violated a collective agreement and awarding damages, and a decision denying reconsideration.

The employer had failed to participate in a related jurisdictional dispute or file a timely response to the grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable, as the employer had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to do so until the eve of the damages hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal zoning by-law that added a motor vehicle service station as a permitted use on the respondent's property.

The application was brought more than four years after the by-law was enacted.

The applicant argued that the municipality failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed amendment, denying it the right to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application due to the significant delay, finding that the municipality had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that the delay caused prejudice to the respondents who had relied on the by-law.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,137.78.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order to the Divisional Court.

The moving party had mistakenly filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal, believing the order was final.

The court applied the test for extending time, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, adequately explained the delay, and that the respondent suffered no prejudice.

The court also found the proposed appeal had some merit, meeting the low threshold required.

The motion to extend time was granted.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which determined that the current value assessment of a landfill site should exclude the value of a facility used to generate electricity from landfill gas.

The appellants argued the facility was a commercial activity, not used exclusively for landfilling activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the generation of electricity from landfill gas is an environmental control activity required by the site's environmental compliance approval, and thus falls within the definition of landfilling activities under O. Reg. 282/98.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. dated October 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision terminating his duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

The applicant alleged the union failed to assist him with WSIB claims and a constructive dismissal dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the duty of fair representation does not extend to WSIB matters and the applicant had not sought the union's assistance regarding his termination.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness or Charter rights.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to file fresh evidence for an upcoming judicial review hearing.

The court had previously struck the applicant's affidavit containing the same evidence on a motion by the respondent.

The court dismissed the current motion on its own initiative under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it to be vexatious and an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that had already been decided or ought to have been raised previously.

The appellant appealed a decision of an Associate Judge dismissing her motion to extend the time to file a statement of claim and serve an amended notice of action in a medical negligence case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's conclusions that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted.

The court declined to decide whether intentional delay by a plaintiff is determinative, as the other findings were sufficient to dispose of the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Independent Police Review Director's decisions to screen out three complaints he filed against various police forces.

The Director had determined that the complaints either did not disclose a breach of the Police Services Act or lacked sufficient information to warrant investigation, making them not in the public interest to pursue.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Director's decisions were rational, logical, and justified given the applicant's failure to provide necessary information.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.