P. Andras Schreck

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dated September 29, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the agreed amount of $4,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court and for an extension of time to bring the motion for leave to appeal one of those decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered no costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated September 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and related relief.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly analyze the distinct factual underpinnings and time periods of the two proceedings.

The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Toronto Licensing Tribunal decisions that first suspended and later revoked his vehicle-for-hire licence due to uncivil behaviour toward municipal staff.

The applicant argued the tribunal ignored evidence of provocation and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably weighed the evidence, considered the context, and appropriately prioritized the public interest after the applicant continued his behaviour despite completing anger management counselling.

The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of two Board decisions finding she breached the Trustees' Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information and imposing 90-day meeting suspensions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications to quash the decisions, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, no Charter violations, and that the decisions were reasonable.

However, the court found the 90-day sanctions unreasonable as they appeared to rely on a new statutory regime not yet applicable, and varied the sanctions to the 38 days already served.

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision finding she breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The board alleged a conflict of interest after a parent committee hired the applicant's husband for a presentation.

An independent investigator concluded there was no breach, but the board rejected this finding without providing reasons.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it was unsupported by the record and lacked justification.

The board's decisions on the breach and sanctions were quashed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of their stored goods due to unpaid storage fees.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the extensive history of unsuccessful motions and appeals across multiple courts.

Finding the proceedings to be a collateral attack on previous orders and a blatant abuse of the court's process, the court dismissed the proceeding as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1).

The appellant's children were brought to a place of safety by the Children's Aid Society.

The protection application was later withdrawn and the parties reached an agreement.

The appellant subsequently brought a motion for a declaration that the CAS acted unlawfully by not obtaining a warrant, and sought costs.

The motion judge declined to rule on the warrant issue and declined to order costs.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision to decline declaratory relief or in her application of costs principles.

The moving party, a self-represented mother, sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a temporary placement order that placed her children in the care of their father under the supervision of the children's aid society.

The court applied the four-factor test for an extension of time.

While accepting the mother's explanation for the delay, the court found that the prejudice to the children caused by litigation uncertainty and the unlikelihood of leave being granted weighed against the extension.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion within a judicial review application seeking an order to compel the Law Society of Ontario to file a record of proceedings under s. 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Law Society argued that its decision to close the applicant's complaint against a lawyer was not a 'statutory power of decision' and thus no record was required.

The court dismissed the motion as moot, finding that the affidavit filed by the Law Society in its motion record already provided the information and confirmation the applicant sought.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.

The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.

The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming that police misconduct complaints were unsubstantiated following her arrests and stayed criminal charges.

The court held that the Director's decision was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and rejected arguments for correctness review based on an alleged implicit declaration of guilt.

The reasons emphasized the distinction between reasonable grounds for arrest or charge and criminal guilt, and confirmed that stayed proceedings not recommenced within one year are deemed never to have commenced under s. 579(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found no reviewable error in the Director's treatment of the evidentiary record, including the arrest for breach of undertaking.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed a discipline decision of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which arose from an agreed statement of fact, plea, and joint submission on penalty.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence, alleging that a panel member was asleep during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence was not sufficiently cogent and partly inadmissible hearsay.

As there were no other grounds for the appeal, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, a school board trustee, brought an application for judicial review of an in-camera decision of the respondent school board.

At the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the in-camera decision had not been brought to a public vote as required by the Education Act.

The parties reached an agreement that no decision was made and the matter would not be put to a public vote, leaving only the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, finding that the respondent failed to communicate its intention not to proceed with a public vote until the hearing, causing the applicant to unnecessarily incur costs.

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order that granted the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their four children.

The father argued the trial judge erred by relying on incorrect translations, failing to enforce shared parenting provisions in their domestic contracts, creating an unclear parenting schedule, and failing to ensure procedural fairness for him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of translation errors, that the trial judge properly disregarded the domestic contracts under s. 56 of the Family Law Act as they were not in the children's best interests, that the parenting schedule was clear, and that the trial judge fulfilled all obligations to assist a self-represented litigant.

The applicant sought judicial review of an administrative penalty order issued to his father, the registered owner of a vehicle caught speeding by an automated camera.

The applicant was the driver and acted as his father's agent before the tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that under section 21.1(9) of the Highway Traffic Act, the driver does not have standing to seek judicial review.

The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the title of proceedings amended to substitute the father as the proper applicant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 21, 2025.

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