Divisional Court

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of C.M. Smith dated December 10, 2025.

After being advised that the Court of Appeal determined the underlying order was a final order, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

The court declined the responding party's request to restrict the moving parties from bringing further motions, noting that such a request must be brought by a separate motion under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure appropriate procedural protections.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The self-represented moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Edwards J. dated November 27, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $7,000, payable by the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 12, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application as abandoned.

The Tribunal had directed the applicant to resubmit documents it deemed faint and illegible, and dismissed the application when he allegedly failed to comply.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because the documents, while faint, were clearly legible.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant's uninsured son was in an accident, and they sought benefits under her brother's spouse's policy, requiring proof of dependency.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT did not breach procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and made no error of law in applying both a 'big picture' and mathematical approach to conclude the appellant was not principally dependent on the named insured.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 in damages for breach of a commercial lease.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Highway Properties principles, exceeding her jurisdiction by granting declaratory relief regarding real property, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent provided proper Highway Properties Notice, the trial judge merely made necessary findings of fact to award monetary damages within her jurisdiction, and the reasons were sufficient given the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claims for breach of partnership and unjust enrichment, and ordering them to pay the respondent damages for breach of contract.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court rejected as it could have been obtained before trial.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the respondent was a lender, not a partner, and that there was a juristic reason for the payments she received.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellant was injured in a workplace accident and received WSIB benefits while retraining at an architectural firm.

He was subsequently injured in a motor vehicle accident, rendering him a paraplegic and unable to continue his retraining, which reduced his WSIB benefits.

He applied for income replacement benefits under the SABS, but his insurer denied the claim on the basis that he was not 'employed' at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal erred in its interpretation of 'employed' by requiring an exchange of wages for services, and held that the appellant's employment relationship and receipt of employment-related income satisfied the statutory requirement.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently initiated a priority dispute with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and denied further benefits.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the insurer successfully moved to determine as a preliminary issue whether the appellant was an 'insured person', resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT's decision to proceed with the preliminary issue while the priority dispute was pending constituted an abuse of process, as it undermined the 'pay now, dispute later' statutory scheme designed to ensure continuity of benefits.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that barred her application for statutory accident benefits based on res judicata.

The Tribunal had previously determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The appellant argued the insurer failed to provide proper notice under s. 38(9) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and that new medical evidence warranted waiving res judicata.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the insurer had previously provided the required notice and was not obligated to issue repeated notices.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's finding that the proposed fresh evidence could have been obtained earlier and did not justify waiving res judicata.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that confirmed an ex parte eviction order against her.

The appellant had negotiated a verbal lease with the property manager after the original tenant vacated.

The Board found she was merely an occupant because the property manager lacked authority under general agency law to bind the landlord.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to consider whether the property manager met the expansive definition of 'landlord' under section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a hearing de novo.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and its adjudicators.

The HRTO had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review LTB decisions or the conduct of its adjudicators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant had already unsuccessfully challenged the same LTB decisions through a combined appeal and judicial review.

The appellants, occupants of campsites at a campground owned by the respondent, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to their occupancy.

The appellants sought extensions of time to appeal the Board's final order, an order refusing to extend time for review, and an order denying review.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals of the extension and review orders as they were interlocutory.

While the court granted an extension of time to appeal the final order, it dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the Board member's extensive copying of legal context from a previous decision did not amount to procedural unfairness or demonstrate a lack of independent adjudication.

The applicant, a self-represented off-reserve First Nations member, sought judicial review of a decision by the Chiefs of Ontario (COO) declining to intervene and provide political advocacy regarding his personal legal disputes and broader systemic concerns.

The COO brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the application would fail.

The court held that the COO is a private voluntary association, and its decision was not public in nature, thus falling outside the scope of judicial review.

Furthermore, the political remedies sought by the applicant were deemed non-justiciable.

An adult daughter fraudulently transferred title of her elderly parents' mortgage-free home into her own name and obtained a $760,000 mortgage from a lender.

When the daughter defaulted, the lender attempted to enforce the mortgage.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment, declaring the transfer and mortgage void as fraudulent instruments under the Land Titles Act, and ordered the daughter to pay $150,000 in punitive damages.

The daughter appealed the punitive damages and costs, while the lender appealed the finding that its mortgage was void.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the punitive damages due to the daughter's egregious conduct and affirming that under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility, the lender's interest must yield to the innocent homeowners.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 19, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court declined to award costs of the motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, which had the effect of lifting the stay of the Board's orders.