ONSCDC 2025

The moving party, McMaster University, brought a motion for leave to proceed with an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's determination, and requested a stay pending the review.

The Divisional Court granted leave to proceed with the judicial review but denied the request for a stay.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $8,800 to follow in the cause.

The respondent, having been successful in the main application for judicial review, sought partial indemnity costs of $45,000.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest exception, or alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest argument, noting the applicant had a personal financial motivation for the proceeding.

However, the court agreed the claimed amount was excessive for a half-day hearing on a narrow issue, and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting an eviction order for non-payment of rent exceeding $20,000.

The applicants failed to file required court documents, failed to serve a notice of constitutional question, and failed to comply with an interim stay order requiring rental payments.

At the hearing, the attending applicant advanced pseudolegal arguments regarding his identity as a private beneficial owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to comply with directions and failed to show the application should be granted on the merits.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay after the appeal was perfected approximately ten months late.

The court applied the test for dismissing an appeal for delay and found that the appellants had maintained an intention to appeal, the delay was largely due to counsel's inaction, and the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the delay.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination claim.

The respondents raised the issue of prematurity because the applicant did not seek reconsideration at the Tribunal.

The prematurity issue was bifurcated for a separate hearing.

The Divisional Court concluded it was not advisable to separate the prematurity issue from the rest of the application and adjourned it to be decided by the panel hearing the full application for judicial review.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the enforcement of a $34,508.98 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario award pending its application for judicial review.

The applicant argued there was a real risk the respondent would be unable to repay the award if the judicial review succeeded.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the evidence of the respondent's inability to repay was speculative and based on outdated income information.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, a legal assistant, sought judicial review of a decision denying her application for appointment as a non-lawyer notary public.

The Manager of Legal Appointments denied the application on the basis that the appointment was not necessary for the law firm's regular business, as the supervising lawyer was already a notary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was procedurally fair because the applicant had notice of the criteria.

The court also held that the decision was reasonable, as it aligned with the long-standing practice of limiting appointments to situations of strict necessity rather than mere expansion of services.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, which refused to fully reimburse their costs for a burial site investigation.

Human remains were discovered on the applicants' property during a Stage 4 archaeological assessment, prompting the Registrar to order a burial site investigation.

The Registrar later found the investigation caused an undue financial burden and agreed to reimburse costs, but limited the reimbursement to a fraction of the claimed amount, attributing the rest to the Stage 4 assessment.

The Divisional Court found the Registrar's decision unreasonable, as it disregarded prior directions that expanded the scope of the burial site investigation and relied on a faulty tool-based analysis to differentiate the work.

The decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and bring an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision lifting a stay of an eviction order.

The landlord moved to dismiss the proceedings as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court denied the extension of time, finding the appeal lacked merit and the landlord would suffer significant prejudice due to over $25,000 in rent arrears.

The court further held that even if the extension were granted, the appeal would be quashed as an abuse of process because the tenant was using the proceedings to delay eviction and live rent-free.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding she persistently paid rent late and ordering her to pay rent in full and on time for a year.

The tenant argued she paid partial rent on time because she was disputing a rent increase and self-abating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Residential Tenancies Act, rent means the entire amount due, and any shortfall constitutes late payment.

The Court confirmed that tenants are not permitted to self-abate rent and must pay in full pending LTB adjudication of any abatement claims.

The appellant estate trustee appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision dismissing an application to terminate a tenancy for the purpose of demolishing the rental unit under s. 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The LTB found the landlord lacked a genuine, crystallized intention to demolish the unit, as the landlord remained willing to sell the property with the house intact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB reasonably interpreted s. 50(1)(a) as containing an implied good faith requirement for a genuine intention to demolish, and that the LTB's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of orders made by Superior Court judges dismissing his underlying action and awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review of a Superior Court judge's decision.

The proper route to challenge the underlying orders was an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim decision and order of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Des Rosiers J. dated September 2, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $11,740 plus costs to the respondent for residential painting work.

The appellant argued the deputy judge ignored his evidence, erred in finding he breached the contracts, and improperly calculated damages and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's factual findings and no error in the exercise of discretion regarding delay or costs.

The court also rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to terminate a tenancy.

The landlord argued the building was originally a 'life lease' building exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore section 51(1), which protects tenants during condominium conversions, did not apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the Act applied was a question of mixed fact and law based on incomplete evidence regarding the prior life lease, and thus outside the court's appellate jurisdiction.

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale under the Partition Act when it had not been explicitly pleaded.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any harm would be purely monetary.

The balance of convenience also favoured the respondent, who needed access to the home's equity.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant was severely injured in a bicycle collision and rendered mentally incapable of making decisions.

She applied for non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) but was denied benefits for the period before her disability certificate was submitted, pursuant to s. 36(3).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider s. 34 of the SABS, which excuses non-compliance with time limits if there is a reasonable explanation.

The Court found that s. 34 applies to the requirement in s. 36(3), and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine if the appellant's incapacity constituted a reasonable explanation.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been terminated after failing to return to work following the lifting of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, claiming injuries from a car accident prevented his return.

The union filed a grievance but struggled to obtain medical documentation from the applicant to substantiate his incapacity.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and found the OLRB's conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily was justified, transparent, and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.