ONSCDC 2024

The appellants appealed a decision under the Business Corporations Act regarding a deadlocked dental corporation.

The application judge had found no oppression by the respondent and ordered the corporation to be wound up essentially in terms of the buyout provisions of a draft shareholders' agreement.

On appeal, the appellants argued the judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address the relief sought regarding the sale of shares.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's rulings were based on the evidence and constituted a reasonable exercise of discretion.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift the statutory stay of eviction.

The tenant had not paid rent for over 15 months, accumulating $49,000 in arrears, and failed to attend the motion hearing.

The court found the appeal was frivolous, raised no question of law, and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlord.

The court lifted the stay, quashed the appeal, and ordered the tenant to pay $49,000 in arrears plus $5,500 in costs.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a 'catastrophic impairment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued the tribunal applied the wrong legal test and violated procedural fairness in assessing his functional impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal standards and the appellant's arguments were impermissible attempts to re-weigh factual evidence on an appeal limited to questions of law.

The appellants, residential tenants, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction for rental arrears.

The court previously directed the appellants to pay ongoing monthly rent and to perfect their appeal by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

After the appellants failed to pay rent, the court lifted the stay of the eviction order.

The appellants subsequently failed to perfect their appeal by the deadline, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitral award that denied its members a paid holiday on September 19, 2022, the day set aside to honour the memory of Queen Elizabeth II.

The collective agreement provided for holidays declared under the Bills of Exchange Act.

The arbitrator found that the Governor in Council's proclamation 'requested' rather than 'appointed' the day, and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for a legal holiday.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding his interpretation of the collective agreement and statutory context to be transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The tenant sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

A stay of eviction was granted subject to the tenant making ongoing rent and arrears payments.

The tenant failed to make any payments, accumulating over $72,000 in arrears.

On the day of the hearing, the tenant withdrew his motion for an extension of time.

The court lifted the stay of eviction, ordered the tenant to vacate by December 15, 2024, and awarded costs of $13,893.92 to the landlord, finding the appeal was filed solely for delay.

The applicant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a patient and his registration was revoked.

After being acquitted in a related criminal trial, he sought to re-open the tribunal hearing to introduce fresh evidence.

The tribunal's Case Management Chair dismissed the motion, finding the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction under its rules to re-open the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Chair's interpretation of the tribunal's rules was reasonable and did not provide a statutory exception to the doctrine of functus officio.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $35,000 for unpaid ATM machines.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by not enforcing a forum selection clause designating Alberta, and by finding the debt was owed to the specific corporate entity that sent the invoice.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge properly applied the 'strong cause' test to decline enforcing the forum selection clause and reasonably inferred the debt was owed to the invoicing entity.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to reduce the pre- and post-judgment interest rate from 18% to 5% per annum, as the invoice failed to state an annualized rate as required by section 4 of the Interest Act.

The tenants appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued that the landlord failed to provide a copy of the lease, that the Board erred in determining the lawful rent, and that the N4 form was improperly served.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the initial landlord had already provided the lease, the tenancy predated the standard lease requirements, and the remaining issues were unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The landlord was awarded costs of $12,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of parenting terms in final consent orders and imposing sanctions that suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and precluded the father from bringing further proceedings.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of contempt, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated non-compliance.

However, the court set aside the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal over ten years ago.

After a decade of inaction, the appellant brought a motion under section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the proper court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and the appeal, finding that the underlying appeal regarding the respondent's compliance with an arbitration award had no reasonable chance of success.

Furthermore, the court found that transferring the matter after such an extreme and unexplained delay would cause undue prejudice to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of D.A. Jarvis J. dated October 15, 2024.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Harris J. dated August 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the municipal respondent and $5,000 to the county and individual respondents.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McSweeney J. dated July 24, 2024.

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

The appellants sought to appeal a decision declining to award costs against a law firm under s. 86(1)(b)(i) of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court held that leave to appeal was required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act because the appeal was solely regarding discretionary costs, and the costs order did not constitute a 'judgment' under s. 71 of the Construction Act.

Finding that the test for leave was not met, the court denied leave and dismissed the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 9, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

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 tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her so the landlord could move into the unit.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly balance the circumstances under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, ignored evidence that the eviction was retaliatory, and that the hearing was procedurally unfair due to the member's interventions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Board properly exercised its discretion, made an unreviewable factual finding that the eviction was not retaliatory, and appropriately managed a meandering hearing without demonstrating bias.

The applicant, a high school student, sought judicial review of a school board committee's decision upholding his 20-day suspension and subsequent exclusion orders.

The discipline was imposed after the applicant made derogatory and harassing comments regarding transgender students, which he claimed were expressions of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's decision reasonable as it appropriately balanced the applicant's freedom of religion with the school's statutory duty to maintain a safe environment free from bullying and harassment.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their rental of a parking space for their motor home due to the seasonal exemption in s. 5(a).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application of the exemption was a question of mixed fact and law, which is outside the court's jurisdiction under s. 210.

The court also dismissed the tenants' motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected their claims of procedural fairness and bias against the Board member.