Divisional Court

The appellant mortgagee appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a mortgage commitment's interest rate provision breached section 8 of the Interest Act.

The provision increased the interest rate from 8.25% to 18% in the final month of the term unless the mortgage was renewed or discharged.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the interest rate increase was triggered by the passage of time rather than default, and therefore did not violate the Interest Act.

The appellant was awarded judgment reflecting the 18% interest rate for the final month and thereafter, along with costs.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and rejected a constitutional challenge alleging that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 violates the freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by failing to provide a right to strike.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision on the unfair labour practice was reasonable and its conclusion on the constitutional issue was correct, as it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fraser.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy at a retirement residence for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex through abusive behaviour towards staff and residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB's application of the substantial interference test.

The Court also rejected arguments that the LTB hearing was procedurally unfair or that the LTB failed to properly consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when ordering the eviction.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Gibson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an adjournment order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

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

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

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the appellant sought costs of $9,454.44, while the respondent proposed $6,000.

The Divisional Court fixed the costs of the appeal at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the appellant's actual costs were over $42,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders.

A non-lawyer claiming to be an Indigenous Grand Chief purported to represent the moving party without court authorization, filing vexatious materials and refusing to follow case management directions based on claims of Indigenous sovereignty.

The court barred the unauthorized representative from acting in the Divisional Court without leave, dismissed the representative's purported motion to review case management decisions under Rule 2.1.01, and ordered the moving party to personally comply with court directions or face dismissal of his motions for leave to appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $25,000.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision denying her request to relocate with her child from Waterloo to Michigan to live with her fiancé.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and admitted fresh evidence of emails demonstrating the respondent father's emotionally abusive and controlling behaviour.

The court found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to apply established mobility jurisprudence, over-emphasizing the maximum contact principle, failing to respect the custodial parent's views, treating the status quo as a default, and placing the mother in a classic double bind.

The appeal was allowed, and the mother was granted permission to relocate with the child.