Divisional Court

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court dated January 20, 2025.

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

The plaintiff and the franchisee defendants brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated December 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $5,000 each and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of three interlocutory decisions made by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice in a criminal proceeding.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters.

The court dismissed the motion, confirming that its judicial review powers under the Judicial Review Procedure Act do not extend to criminal orders, which fall under federal jurisdiction and the Criminal Code.

The court declined to make an order restricting the applicant's access to the courts at this time.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision.

The underlying appeal concerned whether a hearing under s. 24.9(1)2 of the Independent Health Facilities Act is a hearing de novo.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the Board's participation would compromise its impartiality and violate the principle of finality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that because the court would be conducting a correctness review on a jurisdictional issue, the finality and impartiality concerns were muted, and the court would benefit from the Board's expertise on its home statute.

The moving party, acting self-represented, brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 10, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,000.

The appellants appealed a default judgment decision that awarded them $2,260 for a breached website development contract but denied their claims for $90,000 in lost revenue, a mandatory order, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The court upheld the finding that the appellants failed to mitigate their damages by letting their website expire instead of hiring another service provider, and affirmed the discretionary denial of the mandatory order due to the disproportionate nature of the litigation.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Gibson J. dated December 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.