P. Andras Schreck

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal 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 parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Lemay J. dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the respondents.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm after fatally shooting the victim in a restaurant.

The court rejected the offender's claim that he acted in self-defence, finding his belief that the victim posed a threat was unreasonable and unfounded.

Balancing the aggravating factor of using an illegal handgun in a public place against the offender's lack of a prior record and good prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 12 years, along with a concurrent five-year sentence for the firearms offence.

The moving party mother sought a stay of an order refusing to stay a Hague Convention return order pending her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The underlying order required the return of the parties' child to California in the custody of the responding party father.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the mother failed to establish a serious issue to be determined, as she was unlikely to be granted leave to appeal the interlocutory order.

The court agreed with the lower court's analysis on irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, noting the mother's history of non-compliance with court orders.

The appellant moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order lifting a stay of an eviction order pending appeal.

The stay had been lifted because the appellant failed to comply with interim payment terms requiring him to pay ongoing compensation and arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the review motion, finding no reviewable error in the case management judge's exercise of discretion.

The court held that tenants and unauthorized occupants must pay ongoing compensation and make meaningful payments towards arrears to maintain a stay pending appeal.

The self-represented appellant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to stay a tax sale of his property and challenge a property tax assessment by MPAC.

The appellant had previously missed the deadline to appeal the assessment to the Assessment Review Board and had a related Small Claims Court action dismissed or stayed.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from MPAC, an out-of-time appeal from the ARB without leave on a question of law, or an appeal from an interim Small Claims Court order.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his daughter, who was between the ages of nine and 14 during the offences.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the extreme breach of trust and the vulnerability of the child.

The court sentenced the offender in absentia to eight years' imprisonment concurrent on each count, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions, a DNA order, and a SOIRA order.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its employees were provincially regulated for labour relations purposes.

The applicant, a track welding company performing work primarily for interprovincial railways, argued its operations fell under derivative federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board correctly applied the derivative jurisdiction test.

The court found the applicant's work involved maintenance of railway infrastructure rather than the operation of the railways themselves, and thus did not meet the exceptional threshold for federal jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a decision finding them liable for corporate oppression, removing them as directors, and ordering audited financial statements.

They challenged the application judge's refusal to order a winding up of the corporation and the award of substantial indemnity costs.

They also sought to raise a new limitation period defence regarding the financial statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the discretionary refusal to wind up the company or the costs award, and declined to hear the new limitation period argument due to an inadequate evidentiary record.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she failed to establish catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator breached procedural fairness by imposing strict time limits on witness examinations, making unequal evidentiary rulings regarding expert psychiatric testimony, and admitting a late surveillance report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's procedural choices were within her discretion to control the tribunal's process and did not result in unfairness.

The court also found no error of law in the LAT's application of the test for catastrophic impairment.

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 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.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, a pizza delivery driver, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor and 141 franchisees alleging misclassification as an independent contractor.

Both the plaintiff and the franchisee defendants appealed the certification judge's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the finding that the franchisees were not 'common employers' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court granted the franchisees' appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in certifying a conspiracy claim among all defendants because the pleadings only alleged the franchisor controlled the agreements, not that the franchisees conspired with each other.

The certification of employment status as a common issue and the negligence claim were upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decisions to approve planning applications and a demolition permit for the respondent theatre company's heritage theatre, located in a heritage conservation district.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant, a local building corporation, lacked both private and public interest standing to challenge the decisions.

In the alternative, the court held that the municipality's decisions to permit the demolition and exempt the new theatre from parking requirements were reasonable, as they were based on extensive consultation, expert reports, and a balancing of heritage conservation with accessibility and economic benefits.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order varying child support and section 7 expenses.

The motion judge had found a material change in circumstances due to the children's refusal to accept transportation from the respondent father, and the eldest child's attendance at university combined with the appellant's failure to disclose funding sources.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error, misapprehension of evidence, or error in law in the motion judge's discretionary decisions, and rejected the appellant's claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review from an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

Although the responding party was successful, the court declined to award costs because the responding party failed to deliver a costs outline or bill of costs prior to the hearing, contrary to the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings.