Divisional Court

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife's motion for partition and sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The husband argued the parties had reached a binding agreement for him to buy out the wife's interest.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no meeting of the minds, as the husband's acceptance did not include the wife's requirement for a spousal support release.

The Court also found no error in the order for partition and sale under the Partition Act, noting no malicious or oppressive conduct by the wife.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal decision where the appellant was substantially successful, an issue arose regarding the costs of the underlying motion before the Associate Judge.

The appellant sought $18,000 for the motion costs, arguing the issue was inadvertently omitted from the appeal decision.

The respondents argued the parties' agreement on appeal costs encompassed the motion costs.

The court found the agreement did not cover the motion costs and, applying Rule 59.06(1), amended the order to award the appellant $18,000 for the costs of the motion below.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal several orders of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated July 30, 2021.

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

The moving party, UAP Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of E. M. Morgan J. released July 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding parties Robert Dinino and Lawrence Tyler Bacchus, and $7,500 to the responding parties Yako Hirmiz (Jacob) Yako, Sabah (Sam) Yako, and Sako Auto Parts Inc.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 13, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fitzpatrick J. dated April 6, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the appeal lacked merit and the tenants failed to pay rent.

The court found it would be unfair to proceed with the motion to quash given the short timeframe and the tenants' need to obtain transcripts.

The court adjourned the motion to quash to be heard with the expedited appeal, subject to strict conditions requiring the tenants to pay ongoing and arrears rent, order transcripts, and perfect the appeal.

The media applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision in a police disciplinary hearing to impose a publication ban on a video exhibit and subsequently allow the exhibit to be withdrawn from the record.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to apply the proper Dagenais-Mentuck test before granting the ban and by allowing the exhibit to be withdrawn when the media sought to challenge it.

The Court set aside the publication ban and the withdrawal order, directing that the video be made public with the victim's name redacted.

The Court also ordered the police service to provide contemporaneous access to exhibits during future hearings in accordance with the open court principle.

The Death Investigation Oversight Council (DIOC) brought a motion for a sealing order over autopsy files and a redaction order for witness identities in its record of proceedings, which was filed in response to an application for judicial review by Dr. Jane Turner.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the Divisional Court held that while identifying information in the autopsy files must be redacted to protect the dignity of the deceased infants and their families, sealing the entire files was unnecessary.

The court also refused to redact the identities of witnesses interviewed during the DIOC's investigation, finding that the open court principle did not pose a serious risk to the public interest in witness candour.

The appellant appealed a costs decision arising from a summary judgment motion.

The motion judge had awarded substantial indemnity costs against the appellant personally, based on a finding that the appellant's counsel breached his duty to the court by failing to bring a relevant, determinative case to the court's attention.

Although the underlying action settled and the appeal became moot, the lawyer was granted intervenor status to appeal the findings of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge breached procedural fairness by making findings of professional misconduct based on his own research without giving the lawyer notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The moving party mother sought an order for security for costs against the responding party father, who was seeking leave to appeal an ex parte order requiring him to return their children from the United Kingdom to Ontario.

The court found that the father was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and failed to establish impecuniosity.

Furthermore, the court determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise issues of general importance.

The motion for security for costs was granted, and the father was ordered to post $2,500 before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs outlines, no costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding her application for Income Replacement Benefits was statute-barred.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the insurer's denial letter was valid and by refusing to extend the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the appellant's challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise extricable questions of law.

The self-represented appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that preserved her tenancy but denied her request to be re-admitted to the rental unit pending an urgent hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting that the court does not ordinarily hear appeals from interlocutory LTB orders and the appeal would be moot before it could be heard.

After reviewing the appellant's submissions, the court stayed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01, finding it premature and of no practical effect.