Divisional Court

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave and directed the parties to schedule a case management teleconference to establish a schedule and fix the questions for review.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the review panel.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant's motion materials claimed he would suffer irreparable harm by losing his existing licence and livelihood.

However, the court found that the appellant had not been licensed for over two years and was applying for a new registration.

Because a stay would merely maintain the status quo of him being unlicensed, he could not establish irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the court noted serious concerns about the appellant's counsel misrepresenting facts in the motion materials.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated March 6, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $4,200 payable to the responding party within thirty days.

The landlord brought a motion without notice to lift the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the tenant failed to comply with a case management direction to pay ongoing rent and arrears.

The tenant had made partial payments but remained in significant arrears.

The court declined to lift the stay immediately, noting the tenant had not received notice of the motion, and instead issued an order giving the tenant a final opportunity to bring his payments into good standing before the landlord could move again on notice.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a costs order and a subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $15,000 to the responding parties.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following a house fire.

They alleged procedural fairness violations, bias, and unreasonableness, citing the aggressive conduct of the insurer's appraiser and the umpire's independent site visit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite the insurer's appraiser's poor behavior, the applicants had a full opportunity to present their case.

The court held the umpire's process was fair, unbiased, and the resulting valuation was reasonable and intelligible.

The appellant, Binance, sought to extend the time to perfect its appeal in the Divisional Court pending the Court of Appeal's decision on whether to join this appeal with a related leave to appeal application.

The court declined to defer the appeal, holding that the appeal should proceed in the Divisional Court on a regular schedule unless and until the Court of Appeal orders otherwise under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a grocery store for requiring her to wear a mask.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence substantiating a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's request for further medical evidence was reasonable and that the Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness, as the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide the required information.

The applicant sought judicial review of four WSIAT decisions that denied his claim for Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits under s. 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The applicant had suffered a compensable right shoulder injury but later resigned due to severe non-compensable hearing loss.

The WSIAT found that the shoulder injury was not a significant contributing factor to his wage loss after resignation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT properly applied the 'significant contributing cause' test and its decisions were justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The City of Stratford applied for judicial review of a supplemental interest arbitration award that clarified a provision allowing the City to contract out its fire dispatch services.

The initial award permitted contracting out to 'another fire service', which the arbitrator later clarified meant an 'IAFF represented fire service'.

The City argued the arbitrator was functus officio and improperly relied on mediation discussions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably applied the doctrine of functus officio to clarify his manifest intention, and that the City had waived settlement privilege regarding the mediation discussions.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that applied issue estoppel to dismiss their property tax assessment appeals.

The applicants attempted to re-open the 2016 valuation of their land based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their profitability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, holding that subsequent market changes to business results do not constitute a change in the 'state and condition' of the land and are not a valid basis to re-open an assessment.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it did not raise a question of law.

The tenant did not respond to the notice.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related solely to questions of fact, such as credibility and compensation payments.

As appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, the appeal was dismissed.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

The court applied the factors for granting an extension of time, noting the tenant's history of non-payment, the significant arrears, and the lack of apparent merit in the proposed grounds of appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to remediate mould and granting the tenants a $1,000 monthly rent abatement until repairs were completed.

The tenants brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of the abatement order pending appeal.

The Divisional Court lifted the stay, finding that the landlord had failed to perform the ordered repairs for four months while the tenants continued to live in substandard conditions, and set a timetable for the appeal.