Divisional Court

The moving party sought to schedule a motion for contempt against her former landlord, alleging he breached a 2019 stay certificate.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting the moving party had vacated the unit over two years prior and had commenced a civil action raising the same issues.

The court stayed the motion and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01, giving the moving party an opportunity to provide written submissions explaining why the motion should not be dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his battery claim and awarding the respondent $50,000 on a defamation counterclaim.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act because the original claim exceeded $50,000 and the jury did not indicate what damages would have been awarded had the claim succeeded.

Applying the Dunnington factors, the court exercised its discretion under section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought an action for copyright infringement against several foreign corporate entities, alleging their animated film infringed his copyright in a short film of the same name.

The Master stayed the action against six defendants for lack of jurisdiction but allowed it to proceed against three others.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Master erred by failing to consider the evidence and misapplying the test for carrying on business.

Applying the real and substantial connection test, the Court held that Ontario has jurisdiction over all defendants except two, as there was a good arguable case that the other defendants committed copyright infringement in Ontario or the claim was in respect of property in Ontario.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for breach of contract regarding the restoration of a 1986 Ford Bronco and granting the respondent's counterclaim for the balance of the contract price.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the vehicle was to be made drivable and improperly admitted an expert report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were grounded in the evidence and noting the appellant himself had introduced the expert report at trial without challenging the expert's qualifications.

The respondent requested an urgent case conference to seek a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision, or alternatively, to lift the stay of the decision.

The court scheduled the case conference and provided a virtual link.

The appellant attended, but the respondent failed to appear.

The court noted the scarcity of court time and directed that if the respondent wishes to request another appointment, he must explain his failure to attend.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding the revocation of his license and a costs award for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included charging grossly excessive fees, failing to comply with court orders to reimburse his client, and rendering false accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Law Society had parallel jurisdiction with the courts to review retainer agreements and find professional misconduct for breaching court orders.

The court upheld the penalty of revocation, noting the appellant's dishonesty and fundamental disrespect for his obligations as a lawyer.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge dated March 25, 2021.

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

The moving party, Watts Water Technologies Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sanderson J. dated March 16, 2021.

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 moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Kiteley J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the corporate respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000, while no costs were awarded to the individual respondent as no costs outline was filed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $20,000 in liquidated damages for the alleged breach of a non-export clause in a vehicle sales agreement.

The trial judge found the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle had been exported.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including his decision to give little weight to an untested written statement from the manufacturer.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 10, 2021.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

Following a successful appeal that increased the father's parenting time, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the parenting schedule for the summer of 2021.

The mother opposed the father's request for time, citing the children's enrollment in summer camps and a planned trip.

The court found the mother's attitude concerning and ordered a schedule that provided the father with three weeks of parenting time, requiring the cancellation of some recently booked camps to prioritize the children's time with their father.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction on the basis that the landlord sold the rental unit to her brother, who required it for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by curtailing his cross-examination and refusing to compel the unredacted agreement of purchase and sale.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the Board had discretion to control its process, it erred in law by precluding the tenant from testing critical evidence regarding the bona fides of the sale transaction, specifically the purchase price and payment terms.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing.