Divisional Court

The moving party, self-represented, sought a stay of proceedings and costs orders pending decisions on his multiple motions for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the stay request without requiring responding materials, finding that the moving party had failed to comply with previous court directions and timelines, thereby disentitling himself to equitable relief.

The court set final deadlines for the moving party to serve and upload his motion materials for leave to appeal, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2021.

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

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision ordering it to pay for disputed chiropractic treatment plans once incurred.

The insurer argued the LAT lacked jurisdiction to order payment for expenses not yet incurred prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT has broad remedial powers to determine entitlement to benefits, and requiring claimants to self-fund disputed treatments before accessing the LAT would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The self-represented moving party sought to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that declined to extend the time to seek leave to appeal.

The moving party claimed to have mailed a notice of motion shortly after the decision, but the court had no record of it.

Acknowledging the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the moving party's circumstances, the court permitted the motion to review to proceed before a panel of three judges, subject to strict terms regarding deadlines and the materials that could be filed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld the hearing panel's finding of serious professional misconduct, including misleading a client, improper billing of Legal Aid Ontario, and gross negligence in billing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's decision.

The penalty of license revocation and costs of $55,000 were found to be reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the respondent.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding Rule 20 summary judgment motions and a class action certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with respect to the Rule 20 motions and the certification criteria under section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Costs of the leave motions were fixed at $2,500 to the successful party on the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Somji J. dated April 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pierce J. dated May 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Toronto District School Board's decision to reduce the number of French immersion senior kindergarten classes at Palmerston Avenue Junior Public School from two to one.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to reallocate programs did not affect the rights, interests, or privileges of the applicants, and therefore did not attract a duty of procedural fairness.

The court also found that the Board's decision was substantively reasonable and that the Board did not create a legitimate expectation that a different process would be followed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated December 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Belleville Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension to serve a notice of hearing respecting misconduct allegations.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, arguing the application was filed outside the 30-day time limit and was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground of prematurity.

The court held that the decision to extend the time was interlocutory and that courts are reluctant to intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant's argument regarding procedural fairness and inadequate reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying intervention.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. dated June 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated June 8, 2021.

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

The appellant appealed an application judge's order requiring it to vacate a gas bar premises.

The application judge had found a month-to-month commercial tenancy existed and ordered vacant possession.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the application judge erred by resolving disputed material facts regarding whether the appellant had an ownership interest in the property rather than a tenancy.

The appeal was allowed and the application was converted to an action to proceed to trial.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which imposed a 12-month suspension and a general prohibition on prescribing and administering controlled substances.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by departing from a joint submission that would have allowed him to continue prescribing in an in-hospital setting, and by imposing a 12-month rather than 6-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee provided adequate notice of its concerns, met the high threshold for departing from a joint submission, and imposed a fit and proportionate penalty given the appellant's severe clinical deficiencies.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The moving party, Fraser Johnston, sought leave to appeal the order of Ramsay J. dated May 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $4,262.50 and awarded to the responding party, Heartland Farm Mutual Insurance Company, payable by the moving party.