Divisional Court

The respondents brought a motion for an order declaring that the appellants required leave to appeal a costs order under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants argued that leave was not required because the costs were not discretionary, relying on Rule 49.07(5) regarding accepted offers to settle.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion, finding the appellants raised an arguable issue, but did so without prejudice to the respondents raising the leave issue at the hearing of the appeal.

The self-represented applicant, an adult over 21, sought judicial review of the school board's student interest program admission policy and by-laws after being denied admission to two secondary school programs.

The school board brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing, as he had no legal right to attend the programs.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction because the school board's admission policy and by-laws were not the product of a statutory power of decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

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 of Morgan J. dated December 21, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $7,500.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file materials for a motion for leave to appeal a contempt order, citing a broken ankle.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, setting a new timetable for the filing and service of materials, and scheduled the motion to be heard in writing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the respondents.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving party, the Town of Caledon, brought a motion for leave to apply for judicial review of two decisions made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The court also ordered that the disputed amount paid into court remain there pending the final decision, and stayed the impugned orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a committee's decision to take no further action on her complaint against a psychologist.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness because 96% of the Record of Investigation was redacted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB reasonably exercised its statutory discretion to limit disclosure to protect the privacy interests of the applicant's children and to prevent interference with ongoing family law proceedings.

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

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 sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $2,500.

The court also set an expedited schedule for the hearing of the appeal and any contemplated motion to stay the appeal pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicant, a forensic pathologist, sought judicial review of a reporting letter issued by the Death Investigation Oversight Council regarding her complaint against the Chief Forensic Pathologist.

The applicant alleged that the Chief Forensic Pathologist abused his authority by interfering with her conclusion that a child's death was due to natural causes rather than abuse.

The Council investigated and issued recommendations to improve the death investigation system but did not recommend the Chief Forensic Pathologist's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council is an advisory body, not a disciplinary tribunal, and its decision not to make findings of fact or recommend dismissal was reasonable.

The appellant owner appealed a motion judge's order directing the release of holdback funds to subcontractors under the Construction Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in calculating the minimum holdback and in ordering payments without a formal summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the law regarding basic holdback obligations and set-off, and properly utilized the summary procedure under s. 67 of the Act to expedite payment to subcontractors.

The applicant, an unlicensed cemetery owner, sought judicial review of an order by the Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario directing it not to interfere with the interment of a deceased individual.

The applicant argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine interment rights and denied it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar had the statutory authority to ensure orderly burials and incidentally determine interment rights based on reasonable evidence, without breaching procedural fairness.

The applicant moved to strike out an affidavit delivered by the respondent in response to an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The applicant argued the affidavit did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting a party to supplement the record of proceedings.

The court found that the bulk of the affidavit improperly appended and discussed documents already in the record.

However, the court noted that evidence regarding an unrecorded oral ruling could fall within the exception for procedural defects not apparent on the record.

The court struck the affidavit but granted leave for both parties to deliver new affidavit evidence strictly limited to their recollection of whether an oral ruling was made.