Divisional Court

The applicant and respondent both sought leave to appeal separate costs orders made by Nakonechny J. and Diamond J. The Divisional Court waived any technical defects in the motions and dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Parayeski J. dated September 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,126.89.

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 $5,000 to the responding parties.

The appellants appealed a decision finding them liable for $10,022.33 in damages arising from a water leak in their unoccupied condominium unit.

The condominium corporation charged back the repair costs, which were less than its insurance deductible, pursuant to s. 105 of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 105 does not require a finding of negligence or strict liability, but rather a simple 'but for' causation analysis.

The court found that the appellants' failure to shut off the water during their five-month absence was an omission that caused the damage.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Master dismissing two separate actions against his grandfather for delay.

The actions involved allegations of oral promises regarding the transfer of properties and a business.

The grandfather died at age 96 before the actions were set down for trial.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that there was inordinate and unexplained delay, and that the grandfather's death caused actual prejudice and a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible, as the cases turned on the credibility of oral representations.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Community Council decision denying them a front yard parking pad permit.

The permit was refused because the proposed pad was on the same side of the street as authorized permit parking and was too close to a protected tree.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness and that their application was grandparented by a 31-year-old abandoned application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Community Council's decision was reasonable and that the applicants were afforded an appropriate level of procedural fairness given the context.

The appellant sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to extend the time to review a prior decision.

The respondent landlord requested the appeal be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process, noting the appellant had already appealed the prior decision and had it quashed.

The Divisional Court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the appellant under Rule 2.1.01 to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the appeal pending the outcome.

The appellant abandoned her appeal, and the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the appeal was meritless and brought solely to delay the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant opposed, blaming her lawyer and citing financial inability.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent that the appeal lacked merit and was used as a delay tactic.

The court awarded the respondent $3,500 in costs, to be paid from the appellant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant failed to contact court staff to arrange a case management teleconference by the court-ordered deadline.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence.

The misconduct related to his failure to report the kidnapping of an acquaintance and his unauthorized use of a police database to provide information to the victim's brother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's decisions to allow video testimony, admit a criminal trial transcript, refuse a stay for delay, and impose the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding kindergarten class sizes.

The arbitrator had interpreted O. Reg. 132/12 under the Education Act as requiring class size caps to be determined only on a specified date in September, allowing sizes to fluctuate thereafter.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation, based on the text, context, and purpose of the regulation, was internally coherent and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Pollak J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the parties had reached an agreement on costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from two previous decisions.

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

The tenant appellants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy.

They argued the Board erred in law and denied them procedural fairness.

At the hearing, the appellants' counsel advised that the transcripts of the Board hearings had just been received but were not yet filed with the court.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, finding that the transcripts were necessary to fairly determine the procedural fairness issues raised.

A case conference was directed to fix an expedited return date.

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

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