Divisional Court

The appellant sought costs following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law application.

The appellant had submitted an offer to settle 10 days before the appeal hearing.

The respondent municipality argued the offer should not be considered because it lacked time to obtain instructions from the town council, and that it should not pay costs for the initial appearance where the application was stayed.

The Divisional Court rejected both arguments, finding the offer was served within the time required by the Rules and the respondent had supported the erroneous stay.

The court awarded the appellant costs of $29,303.73, including substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory case management and scheduling directions made by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering the dismissal of the application as premature.

The court found that the HPARB's directions did not finally dispose of any substantive issues and were unambiguously interlocutory.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against reviewing interlocutory administrative decisions, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, whose licence to practice law was revoked in 2012 for ungovernability, sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision affirming the denial of his re-licensing application.

The Hearing Division had found the applicant was not of good character due to his failure to disclose outstanding civil judgments, criminal convictions, and prior discipline, as well as a lack of remorse and rehabilitative efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision reasonable and concluding there was no procedural unfairness in the tribunal proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim regarding two leased trucks and granting the respondents' counterclaim.

The appellants argued the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding there was a sticker on the passenger side door of the truck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants could not raise a new factual argument on appeal that was not put to witnesses or argued at trial.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, as the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents.

The defendant hospitals brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's civil proceedings, which arose from the termination of his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment of the motion pending the disposition of his related appeals before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and a review motion in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that the results of the administrative proceedings could impact the viability of the civil claims, and stayed the civil proceeding in the interim.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Review Board which found that their top-loading manure tank was not a normal farm practice due to significant non-compliance with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Board had ordered the appellants to cease using the tank within 24 months after finding the respondents were directly affected by an odour disturbance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its conclusion that the 166-foot deviation from the guidelines precluded the tank from being a normal farm practice.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 20, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $8,213.01.

The moving party respondent sought leave to appeal an order of Myers J. dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding party/applicants and $5,000 payable to the respondents Hsin Hua Hsieh and Ying Ting Lin, for a total costs award of $10,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of R.B. Reid J. dated November 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment and costs endorsement regarding a construction contract dispute.

The trial judge had found the appellant's evidence not credible, rejected its claims for extras, and accepted the respondent's evidence regarding back charges and costs to complete.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were available on the record and her approach to contract accounting was correct.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $7,500 awarded to the respondent.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding them bound by collective agreements as successor employers under s. 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the principals engaged in a scheme to establish a non-union company and that a sale of the business occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding the principal's role and the lack of prejudice from delay were supported by the record.

The tenant appealed five separate Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders to the Divisional Court, obtaining automatic stays of eviction.

The tenant failed to perfect the appeals, order transcripts, or pay rent and arrears as directed by the court.

The court found the tenant was abusing the court's process to delay eviction while profiting from subtenancies.

Two appeals were dismissed as abandoned, and the remaining three were quashed for delay and abuse of process.

The stays of eviction were lifted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the landlords.

Following the successful motion to quash the tenant's appeal as an abuse of process, the landlord sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,264.74.

The tenant made no submissions on costs.

The court noted the tenant's conduct lengthened the proceedings but also recognized that some additional time was related to the tenant's requests for accommodation due to mobility issues.

The court reduced the requested amount and ordered the tenant to pay costs of $13,000 to the landlord.

The self-represented applicant, who is incarcerated, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion for default judgment against his former lawyer due to improper service.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that while the applicant formed the intention to appeal in time, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated October 12, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,746.00.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 13, 2023.

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