Divisional Court

The appellant franchisee appealed a motion judge's decision denying an interlocutory injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's two-paragraph reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to address the renewal clause, the factual disputes, or the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Court declined to decide the injunction on the merits, remitting it to a different judge.

The Court also held that the franchisor's undertaking not to terminate the agreement pending the determination of the injunction motion remained binding through the appeal process.

The tenants appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board for breaching a consent order regarding rental arrears.

At a case conference, the court noted that the appeal appeared to raise questions of fact rather than law, and ordered written submissions on whether the appeal should be quashed.

The court also ordered the tenants to pay $9,890 in arrears and bring their 2024 rent current as a condition of maintaining the stay of eviction proceedings pending the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 12, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 15, 2023, and a subsequent costs order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to enforce a Building Code compliance order regarding an unpermitted dwelling unit.

The application judge had found that the building official's act of looking through the window of a storage unit constituted an unlawful warrantless search of a dwelling unit and excluded the evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the official was authorized by statute to inspect the property and that looking through the window of a building not permitted as a dwelling unit did not constitute an unlawful entry into a dwelling unit.

The compliance order was enforced.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the respondent did not file any materials.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J., and the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to appeal the same order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 25, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant, OHIP, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which granted the respondent funding for a vaginoplasty without penectomy in Texas.

OHIP argued the procedure was not a specifically listed insured service and was experimental.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the plain reading of the Schedule of Benefits lists vaginoplasty and penectomy as separate procedures, and that interpreting the schedule to require a penectomy would be inconsistent with the WPATH Standards of Care and Charter values.

The court also declined to allow OHIP to raise a new argument on appeal regarding out-of-country funding criteria.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) declining to add a claim for punitive damages to a dispute over Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claims.

Relying on its concurrent decision in Keulen v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Divisional Court held that the LAT does not have the authority to award punitive damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent insurer.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its sole director, moved for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking their registrations pending appeal.

The Tribunal had found the appellants breached multiple conditions of a prior consent order, including failing to disclose material facts to consumers and trading without required education.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the appellants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the public interest in consumer protection.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision ordering it to produce copies of a statement of claim and statements of defence to a unit owner.

The appellant argued the records were protected by litigation privilege and exempt from disclosure under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that exchanged pleadings are public documents that do not attract litigation privilege, and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to order disclosure.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The landlord sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found he had illegally evicted the tenant following a flood.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for an extension, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit because it only challenged the Board's findings of fact regarding whether the tenant had abandoned the unit, whereas appeals under the Residential Tenancies Act are restricted to questions of law.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.