Divisional Court

The applicant, a legal assistant, sought judicial review of a decision denying her application for appointment as a non-lawyer notary public.

The Manager of Legal Appointments denied the application on the basis that the appointment was not necessary for the law firm's regular business, as the supervising lawyer was already a notary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was procedurally fair because the applicant had notice of the criteria.

The court also held that the decision was reasonable, as it aligned with the long-standing practice of limiting appointments to situations of strict necessity rather than mere expansion of services.

The applicant sought judicial review and appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for attendant care benefits.

The LAT found that the applicant failed to prove his family members sustained an economic loss in providing care, as required by s. 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant conceded the LAT correctly interpreted the provision but argued the requirement conflicted with the consumer protection mandate of the legislation and produced an absurd result.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no ambiguity in the legislation and that rewriting the statute to achieve a perceived equitable result was not a justiciable issue.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of Howie J. dated February 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $9,085 to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that dissolved a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the impugned order, and restored the Mareva injunction pending the final disposition of the appeal.

The court also ordered an expedited schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and awarded costs of the motion to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of Conway J. dated April 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to each of the responding parties, Sheldon Libfeld and Jay Libfeld.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Perfetto J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $5,853.40 to the responding party within thirty days.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay under Rule 61.13(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants had failed to perfect their appeal of an order staying their action on the basis of forum non conveniens for over two years past the deadline.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, did not rebut the presumption of prejudice, and advanced an appeal lacking merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a 2021 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint as premature.

The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations for medical issues, the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the three-year delay or demonstrate apparent grounds for relief.

The court found the proceeding met the test under Rule 2.1 and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed a discipline panel's decision finding they engaged in professional misconduct by devising and sending three falsified emails to discredit former employees.

The appellants admitted to sending one email but claimed the other two were sent by a hacker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the panel correctly applied the burden of proof, reasonably rejected the hacking theory, properly qualified the respondent's digital forensics expert, and appropriately drew an adverse inference against the appellants for failing to produce key evidence.

The court also upheld the panel's penalty and costs awards, noting the sanctions were measured given the fundamental dishonesty involved.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution, and imposing sanctions including a joint and several disgorgement order of approximately $8.7 million.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the Commission refused to adjourn the merits hearing and restricted cross-examination, and that the joint and several disgorgement order was demonstrably unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the adjournment refusal or hearing conduct, and holding that the Commission's broad public interest discretion under the Securities Act permitted joint and several disgorgement orders.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board decision dated May 4, 2021.

The court considered the factors under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court found the delay of over four years was very long, lacked a good explanation, and caused prejudice to the responding party, which no longer exists.

Furthermore, the court found the merits of the proposed judicial review were not strong.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications regarding the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act and a claim for a rent rebate.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the applicability of the Act was res judicata due to a prior final order.

Furthermore, the Board correctly applied section 135.1(5) of the Act to validate a previously non-compliant rent increase because the tenant had paid it for over 12 months and the matter was not finally determined before the statutory deadline.

The court also dismissed the appellant's allegations of institutional bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her claims for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, catastrophic impairment designation, and attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT's decisions regarding the 104-week deadline for income replacement benefits, the assessment of catastrophic impairment criteria, and the reduction of attendant care benefits were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness violations, concluding that the LAT appropriately controlled its own process.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated January 15, 2025.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision that struck the personal respondents and dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision to strike the personal respondents was reasonable, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

However, the court held the HRTO unreasonably dismissed the application by failing to justify its conclusion that there was 'no evidence' of discrimination despite the applicant's factual assertions.

Furthermore, the HRTO breached procedural fairness by ordering a summary hearing after a previous Vice-Chair had already directed a merits hearing which had commenced.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO for a merits hearing.

The moving parties (Ontario) sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay an earlier order on an expedited basis.

The court declined to schedule the stay motion before a single judge prior to the leave to appeal motion, noting the responding parties needed time to respond to new affidavit material and that the matter was better suited for a panel.

The court established a schedule for the exchange of materials for the leave to appeal motion to be heard in writing by a panel.