ONSCDC 2020

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Desotti J. dated July 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $2,200.

A case management teleconference was held to provide procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal.

The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, the use of a password-protected drop box for electronic filing, and the formatting of factums and compendiums.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal that had been adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court directed that the appeal proceed by video conference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Detailed procedural directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that harmonized wages for a newly merged bargaining unit to the highest pre-existing rate.

The Board of Arbitration based its decision on a well-established pattern of post-merger harmonization in the hospital sector, without analyzing the hospital's arguments that its specific circumstances were unique.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons meeting the minimum standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by Vavilov.

The matter was remitted to the Board.

The appellant sought an interim stay of an order directing the sale of a matrimonial home pending his appeal.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no irreparable harm to the appellant, as he could purchase another home and had been out of the property for nearly three years.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the appellant's delay in seeking the stay and the risk of losing a pending $3.91 million offer in a volatile real estate market.

The request for an interim stay was denied.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming motion for leave to appeal and appeal from a temporary order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court directed that the motion and appeal be heard together via video conference and established a timetable for the electronic filing of materials.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court provided instructions on the use of ZOOM technology, dress code, and the electronic filing of documents, including hyperlinked factums and compendiums.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedure for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided directions on electronic filings, videoconferencing protocols, and public access.

The applicant's motion to stay the impugned decision was adjourned to the panel, with the court declining the respondent's request to adjourn it to a single judge after the hearing.

The moving parties sought to object to the responding parties including their factums from the court below in their motion record for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement clarifying that anything before the court below may form part of the record on a motion for leave to appeal, and there was nothing improper about including the factums.

The court declined to reconsider its decision on the motion for leave to appeal, noting that its decision did not turn on the responding parties' factums.

The court heard a motion to stay an order for the removal of a child to Nigeria.

As the decision remained under reserve, the court ordered a temporary stay of the removal order pending the release of its full decision.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants had failed to pay rent for over a year and failed to comply with a prior court order to pay rent pending the appeal.

The court found that the tenants' appeal raised no question of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

Furthermore, the court held that the appeal was an abuse of process, brought solely to allow the tenants to live rent-free while the court process played out.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay of proceedings was vacated.

The moving party, a veterinarian previously found guilty of professional misconduct, brought three motions seeking reasons from the Complaints Committee, admission of fresh evidence, and a stay of penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction as there was no existing proceeding.

The court also held that the issues raised were res judicata, having been previously decided by the Discipline Committee and the Divisional Court on appeal.

The motions were deemed an abuse of process and dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, Hudson's Bay Company, sought judicial review of a regulation that required its department stores to close during the COVID-19 pandemic while allowing big box stores that sell groceries to remain open.

The applicant argued the distinction was irrational and ultra vires the enabling statute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the regulation was authorized by the Reopening Ontario Act and consistent with its purpose of balancing public health measures with economic concerns.

The court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to assess the wisdom or efficacy of the government's policy choices.

The mother sought an emergency interim stay of a trial judgment that granted custody of the parties' daughter to the father and permitted him to relocate with the child to Oregon.

The mother requested the stay pending her intended appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to order an interim stay, noting that the appeal likely lies to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court, and that the mother failed to provide evidence that the appeal would be frustrated if the child relocated.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the mother bringing a proper motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing his application to review and change child support obligations under minutes of settlement.

The trial judge, unable to determine the parties' incomes, had ordered the continuation of the original $725 monthly payment.

The Divisional Court found this was an error of law and a palpable and overriding error of fact, as a review requires de novo findings of income and an assessment of the equal parenting time under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was allowed in part and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant brought a motion to supplement the record of proceedings for her judicial review application with almost 5,000 pages of additional documents.

She argued these documents were 'documentary evidence filed with the tribunal' under s. 20(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because she had sent them to the tribunal's registrar and executive chairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that merely sending documents to tribunal officials or providing them during disclosure does not make them evidence in a hearing.

The applicant failed to meet the Keeprite test for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision confirming a parking ticket issued to his daughter's vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was improperly seeking to overturn findings of fact, which is not the function of judicial review.

The court also rejected the applicant's allegation of bias against the Hearing Officer and noted that the applicant lacked standing as he was neither the registered owner nor the operator of the vehicle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.

The applicant landowners sought judicial review of the Minister's decision denying their request to 'bump-up' a class environmental assessment for a road-widening project to an individual environmental assessment.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to alleged errors in the environmental study report regarding stormwater management.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was reasonable as it addressed the applicants' concerns by imposing conditions and relying on concurrent planning processes.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.