Owen Rees

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his application for a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator's reasons were inadequate, conclusory, and failed to account for extensive expert medical evidence regarding the appellant's traumatic brain injury.

The court held that the adjudicator made factual findings without evidentiary support, particularly regarding the appellant's volunteer activities.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of B. MacFarlane J. dated September 9, 2025.

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

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

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 brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator in an Ontario Dispute Adjudication of Construction Contractors case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of a determination made by an adjudicator under the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contractors (ODACC).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,313.06.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for the sale of a jointly-held cottage under the Partition Act and dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff alleged two oral contracts — one to refrain from selling the cottage before 2033 and another regarding a time-sharing schedule — as well as tortious interference with his use and enjoyment of the property.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of oral agreements unpersuasive and unsupported, held that no action in nuisance could lie between joint tenants on jointly-held land, and determined that the alleged interferences were trivial.

Summary judgment was granted directing the sale of the cottage, the plaintiff's action was dismissed, and partial indemnity costs of $49,420.35 were awarded to the moving party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

Le requérant a demandé des ordonnances de conformité en vertu de l’article 134 de la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums concernant des locations à court terme, une caméra installée sans autorisation sur un élément commun, et des comportements allégués comme harcelants et nuisibles à la jouissance paisible.

Le tribunal a conclu à des violations répétées des règles et du règlement sur les locations à court terme, ainsi qu’à une contravention de l’article 98 pour la caméra.

Le tribunal a aussi conclu à des comportements harcelants et à des actes nuisant au confort et à la jouissance paisible des autres copropriétaires.

Une ordonnance a été signée avec modifications et des dépens partiels de 18 000 $ ont été accordés au requérant.

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 one of the responding parties.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of sexually abusing a patient who was also his coworker.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in finding the coworker was a 'patient' under the Patient Criteria Regulation, asserting that dispensing a prescription did not constitute a 'direct interaction'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether a patient relationship existed was a question of mixed fact and law subject to deference.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that dispensing a prescription and conducting a clinical verification constituted a direct interaction creating a pharmacist-patient relationship.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision and a costs decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in all respects and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of two determinations made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicants sought to challenge Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision requiring security for potential 7-year warranty claims.

The applicants' registration had previously been revoked by a Consent Order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's concern about the risk of major claims was justified and its discretion was exercised reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $22,319.98.

The applicant sought a divorce, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and ongoing and retroactive child support for their seven-year-old child.

The parties were married in 2016 and separated in 2017.

The applicant has been the primary caregiver since the child's birth in Ontario, while the respondent initially remained in Quebec and later relocated to Texas.

The court granted the applicant's application, awarding sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant, parenting time to the respondent consisting of weekly virtual calls and monthly in-person visits within Ontario, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income for periods of intentional underemployment and the respondent's current earnings.

The accused was charged with six counts of sexual abuse against a child complainant: two counts of invitation to sexual touching, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused, who was in a relationship with the complainant's mother and living in the home, sexually abused the child on multiple occasions in the bathroom and principal bedroom when the mother was at work.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and reliable on the core elements of the abuse, rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, and found that DNA evidence (semen on the complainant's underwear) corroborated the complainant's account.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.