P. Andras Schreck

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision granting statutory accident benefits to a passenger injured when a bus drove over a raised manhole cover.

The Divisional Court found no error in the Tribunal's findings that the manhole cover was an 'object' and the impact constituted a 'collision' under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The appeal and application were dismissed.

Counsel for the moving parties on a motion for leave to appeal brought a motion under r. 15.04 to be removed as the lawyer of record due to a serious loss of confidence and breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship.

The client opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, holding that ethical concerns, including a complete breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship, oblige the court to permit removal.

The court rejected the client's argument of prejudice, noting the advanced stage of the written proceedings and the client's history of securing other representation.

The court released an endorsement correcting an error in its previous reasons for judgment on an application for judicial review.

The court had mistakenly stated that neither party sought costs.

The court amended its reasons to award costs to the successful applicant, fixing them at $17,000.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on rural lands, alleging the City of Ottawa acted in bad faith and failed to follow required procedures.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing and exercised its discretion to hear the application despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

On the merits, the court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bad faith or procedural unfairness in the City's sequencing of approvals, suspension of procedural rules, or reliance on the submitted technical studies.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the application appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the court concluded there was no legal basis to set aside the Tribunal's decision or grant the requested remedies, and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a Law Society Tribunal decision finding he committed professional misconduct during two criminal trials by engaging in uncivil behaviour, failing to competently represent his client, and failing to act with integrity.

The Hearing Panel imposed a three-month suspension and ordered $225,000 in costs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Hearing Panel erred in its application of the test for incivility, improperly admitted expert evidence on the standard of competence, and imposed an unfit penalty and costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The majority upheld the findings of misconduct, concluding the appellant's baseless allegations of racial bias and impropriety against trial judges and Crown counsel crossed the line of resolute advocacy.

The court also upheld the penalty and the costs award, finding the Hearing Panel properly considered the appellant's financial circumstances and his conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the disciplinary proceedings.

One judge dissented in part, concluding the costs award was disproportionate and effectively punitive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Ontario Compensation Fund Subcommittee denying her claim for compensation.

The applicant had suffered significant harm, including sexual harassment and defamation, by a lawyer she retained, and obtained an uncollectible civil judgment against him.

The Subcommittee denied the claim on the basis that it did not meet the definition of 'loss' in its Guidelines, stating it was 'without jurisdiction' to assist.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Subcommittee fettered its broad statutory discretion under section 51(5) of the Law Society Act by treating the non-binding Guidelines as determinative.

The decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant employee was temporarily laid off when the respondent's restaurant relocated.

He later claimed constructive dismissal but continued to work for the respondent to mitigate damages.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the claim, finding the employee condoned the breach by accepting wages and returning to work.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by equating silence with condonation, failing to allow a reasonable time to assess the new terms, and misunderstanding the law of mitigation.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order following a shootout in a café.

The court dismissed a Charter application alleging that correctional staff improperly disseminated the offender's disclosure to other inmates, finding insufficient evidence.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 7 years imprisonment, but deducted 18 months to account for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

After applying Summers credit for time served, the remaining sentence was 23 months.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision awarding approximately $2.4 million in compensation to a landowner for the expropriation of a vacant lot.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to screen out the expropriation scheme's effect on the property's value under s. 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act, and by improperly assessing the risk of land dedications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Tribunal's application of the Pointe Gourde principle and concluding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding land dedications were entitled to deference.

The moving party brought a motion to review two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as moot, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge quashing his motion to hold a Landlord and Tenant Board member in contempt.

The moving party argued the single judge lacked jurisdiction to quash the motion.

The Divisional Court held that the single judge had jurisdiction under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that a finding of contempt against a Board member is precluded by adjudicative immunity.

Finding no error in the single judge's decision, the court dismissed the motion.

The moving party, a former paralegal, sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his application as abandoned.

The moving party filed his notice of application nine months after the HRTO decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish apparent grounds for relief because he provided insufficient evidence to show the HRTO's decision was unreasonable.

The court also noted the nine-month delay was unexplained.

The appellant purchased airline tickets for her sister and niece.

Following a flight delay, the relatives assigned their claims against the airline to the appellant, who sued in Small Claims Court.

The airline successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that the assignment was invalid under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and violated the rule against champerty and maintenance.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, finding the motion judge erred in law by concluding the Act only applied to real property and by finding the assignment champertous despite the appellant's pre-existing financial interest in recouping her expenses.

The matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court.

The applicants sought judicial review of an administrative directive redirecting frozen racing funds to the benefit of the Ontario racing industry rather than re-distributing them race by race.

The court held that the applicants had no remaining right or interest to challenge the directive because the earlier forfeiture order had finally disposed of the entire frozen account and any argument that some funds were from non-purse sources should have been raised in the original proceedings.

The court also held that judicial review is discretionary and declined relief because the application was perfected more than six years after commencement, the delay was excessive and inadequately explained, and prejudice was presumed.

The application was dismissed with agreed 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 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 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.