Divisional Court

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $45,000 made against him in a family law proceeding.

The motions judge had awarded costs on a full indemnity basis after finding the applicant acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to bring the motion but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs award and noting the case did not raise issues of general importance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that denied him temporary disability benefits and found no permanent impairment from a workplace accident.

The applicant argued WSIAT erred by relying on a general medical discussion paper, failing to consult a medical advisor, and improperly weighing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding WSIAT's decision was reasonable, supported by the applicant's own medical records showing pre-existing back pain, and that WSIAT, as an expert tribunal, was not required to consult a medical advisor.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying it as the employer of union members and dismissing its request for reconsideration.

The applicant had failed to respond to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit, later claiming it was not the employer and had ignored the notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decisions were subject to a reasonableness standard of review and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in refusing to reconsider the certification despite the applicant's claim that it was not the true employer.

The union brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that permitted the employer to file affidavit evidence containing notes of a labour arbitration hearing on an application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the affidavit evidence, finding that the motions judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the Keeprite standard.

The court held that affidavit evidence is only admissible in rare circumstances to show a complete absence of evidence on an essential point or a breach of natural justice, neither of which were established by the employer.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his appointment as a bailiff for allegedly participating in unlawful entries.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the first incident was unreasonable because the evidence established the client had a right to occupy the premises.

The Court further held it was administratively unfair to rely on a second, much older incident as an independent basis for revocation due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the motion judge dismissing her motion to set aside a Registrar's order.

The Registrar had dismissed her appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order for failure to perfect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant raised no question of law, provided no explanation for the delay in perfecting the appeal, and demonstrated no grounds to vary or set aside the motion judge's order.

The husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $12,000 in lump sum spousal support and to return property to his former wife following a very brief marriage.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by failing to relate the support amount to the wife's actual needs and by ordering the return of property that was not claimed in the pleadings.

The appeal was allowed, the lump sum support was reduced to $4,800, and the order for the return of property was deleted.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the tenant $5,500 and costs.

The dispute centered on whether the landlord could require the tenant to replace its sign due to a change in the plaza's sign policy, despite a lease provision expressly approving the existing sign.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the approval lasted for the duration of the lease and found no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding the nature and extent of injuries suffered in a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the highest level of deference to the Tribunal's assessment of medical evidence and credibility.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for improperly adding them as an intervenor without an order.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for leave to appeal an order regarding a capacity examination, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the appellant filed an unnecessarily voluminous 90-page factum, it did not create a significant additional burden.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,000 each for two respondents and $5,000 for the third, reflecting the moderate complexity of the issues and the principle of proportionality.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

He argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction and violated natural justice by refusing to admit documentary evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and confirming that evidence is not permissible on a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing their request to amend their Statement of Defence.

The action was commenced in 1986, and the motion to amend was brought just as a trial date was about to be set.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the motion was an abuse of process designed to delay the trial.

The court agreed that the extraordinary delay, lack of reasonable explanation, and irremediable prejudice to the plaintiffs justified refusing the amendments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to return an $850 deposit to the respondent.

The parties had negotiated a lease for a basement apartment, which the respondent argued included exclusive use of the laundry room.

When the appellant decided to alter the laundry room access, the respondent refused to move in and demanded her deposit back.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the appellant breached a fundamental term of the agreement.

The court also held that the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to determine whether a tenancy agreement was concluded, and that the Deputy Judge's interventions during the trial did not amount to a reversible error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

In the course of the proceeding, she brought a motion to seal or redact portions of the record containing her personal medical information, and for an extension of time to perfect her application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for a sealing order, finding that the applicant's personal discomfort did not override the open court principle and that she had impliedly waived confidentiality by initiating the review process.

The court granted the extension of time to perfect the application.

The self-represented applicant requested a third adjournment of her judicial review application and motion for leave to appeal due to health issues.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory hearing date, but ordered the applicant to pay $500 in costs thrown away to the respondent within 30 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, alleging he signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Penalty under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Committee's credibility findings that there was no duress.

The Court also held that the finding of a Code of Ethics violation and the penalty imposed were reasonable, given the applicant's creation of a false document and misrepresentation regarding a competing offer.