Divisional Court

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $160,171.70 in quantum meruit for cottage renovation work and $256,163.05 in substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants argued the remediation work was a fixed-price contract and that quantum meruit should not apply to customized goods left in the contractor's warehouse after the appellants terminated the project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the contract was not fixed-price and that the contractor was entitled to reimbursement for the customized goods.

The substantial indemnity costs award was upheld due to the appellants' unproven and aggressively maintained allegations of fraud.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order and requested leave to provide fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court granted leave to provide the fresh evidence and considered it, but ultimately dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The Township of Oro-Medonte and a ratepayers' alliance appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that repealed a zoning by-law amendment aimed at regulating short-term rentals.

The Tribunal had found the by-law created a new land use prohibition that was overbroad and not in the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness, correctly interpreted the existing zoning by-law, and made no error of law in concluding the amendment did not represent good planning.

The moving parties, the Attorney General of Canada and others, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 21, 2023.

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

The tenant brought a motion to set aside an earlier endorsement that lifted a stay of eviction, arguing he was not served with the notice of motion.

The landlord claimed he served the notice personally, but this was inconsistent with his earlier email to the court stating a notice of motion was not required.

The court set aside the earlier endorsement, reinstating the stay of eviction pending appeal, and set an expedited timetable for the appeal.

A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a national class proceeding against major online accommodation booking platforms for alleged systemic misleading advertising practices.

The appellants sought nominal damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement under consumer protection legislation, explicitly disclaiming compensatory damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was plain and obvious these remedies were unavailable under the Consumer Protection Act without proof of individual compensatory harm.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering her to repay $29,570.92 in income replacement and attendant care benefits to the respondent insurer due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in applying section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application of legal principles to evidence is a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, which limits appeals to questions of law only.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which required her to complete a remediation program and receive a caution for working for two public health employers concurrently during the same shifts.

The applicant argued she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable and justified based on the record.

The appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record in the Divisional Court proceedings due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The appellant did not oppose the motion, but the respondent opposed it, citing concerns about the timing given an impending motion in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to remove counsel effective March 29, 2024, noting that the removal applies only to the Divisional Court proceedings and is without prejudice to the pending matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders that set aside a noting in default and struck his pleadings with leave to amend.

The court applied the test for extending time, focusing on the justice of the case.

The court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the motion judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference and did not raise issues of broader importance.

The motion was dismissed to avoid further delay in the underlying family law proceeding, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

The appellant, a board member of a not-for-profit anti-hate organization, sued the respondents for defamation over two tweets that criticized the organization but did not name him.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action, finding the appellant failed to prove the tweets would lead a reasonable person to believe they referred to him.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, concluding the trial judge applied the correct legal test.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, confirming that the impugned words were not reasonably understood to refer to the appellant.

The appellant brought a motion in writing for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that reasons and a decision on costs would follow in a subsequent endorsement.