E. Ria Tzimas

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her claims of workplace discrimination and reprisal against her former employer.

She alleged the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the HRTO's procedural rulings, including the admission of hearsay evidence and late-filed documents, were fair and within its discretion.

The court concluded the HRTO's dismissal of the discrimination and reprisal allegations was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The court heard two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought child and spousal support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and authority to sell the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to vary a preservation order to allow the sale of pharmacies.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the evidentiary records insufficient and noting the parties' complex financial arrangements and potential breaches of the preservation order.

The court ordered the matter to proceed to trial, directed the release of trust funds to pay matrimonial home debts, and ordered interim child support.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Carey J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay the responding party's costs fixed at $3,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. dated May 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,000 to the litigation guardian for the plaintiff and $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Papageorgiou J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties failed to provide a Costs Outline.

The plaintiff commercial tenants brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent their eviction, relief from forfeiture, and a declaration that a December 2020 agreement was void or rescinded due to alleged bad faith and COVID-19 eviction moratoriums.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them, as their primary concern was a rent increase rather than the loss of the premises.

The court also held that relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the termination was based on a month-to-month tenancy rather than a breach, and that rescinding the agreement required a summary judgment motion, which was premature.

The accused, N.B., was charged with sexual assault, exposing his genital organs to a person under 16, and sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose on the same complainant, A.W. N.B. pleaded not guilty and testified, denying the allegations.

The Crown argued that A.W.'s testimony was unshaken and corroborated.

The court found N.B. not credible but also identified significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the Crown's evidence, particularly A.W.'s account and the corroborating witnesses.

The court concluded that while "something bad" may have happened to A.W., the evidence was insufficient and unreliable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

N.B. was found not guilty on all counts.

The plaintiff sought an order to exclude co-defendant police officers from each other's examinations for discovery and to prohibit communication between them until the conclusion of discoveries.

The plaintiff argued this was necessary due to a risk of tailored or parroted testimony, citing the officers' prior conduct in criminal proceedings where they admitted to obstruction of justice.

The defendants opposed, asserting their right to attend and arguing no sufficient risk of tailoring existed.

The court granted the exclusion order, finding a clear risk of tailored evidence given the officers' past dishonesty, and determined that the ends of justice required the exclusion to ensure fair examinations, despite the logistical challenges for common counsel.

The plaintiff, PCNIX Inc., brought a motion seeking a declaration that a default judgment obtained against the defendants, TECPARTNER Inc. and Edwin Masango, survived Masango's bankruptcy under sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original statement of claim and the trial judge's findings did not contain sufficient factual allegations of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation, false pretenses, or fraudulent misrepresentation to bring the debt within the purview of the specified BIA sections.

The court emphasized that for a debt to survive bankruptcy, the underlying pleadings must contain specific factual particulars, even if fraud is not explicitly pleaded as a cause of action.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion to vary a Preservation and Non-Dissipating Order to permit the purchase of three pharmacies and the sale of two others, proposing to hold net proceeds in trust.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that the Applicant's financial disclosure was inadequate and that varying the order would prejudice her claims for equalization, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding that the Applicant had not provided sufficient security to meet anticipated obligations due to significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in his financial disclosures regarding net worth, income, and asset leveraging.

The court emphasized the need for full transparency to assess the magnitude of the Respondent's claims and the Applicant's ability to satisfy them.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

He pleaded guilty to the breach but not guilty to the sexual assault.

The trial centered on whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse in the back of a vehicle.

Both the complainant and the accused testified, presenting conflicting narratives.

Applying the W.(D) framework, the court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both witnesses, including inconsistencies in the accused's testimony and a potential motive to fabricate by the complainant.

Ultimately, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of sexual assault.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it was in compliance with its commercial lease and sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord alleged the tenant breached the lease by subletting to towing companies and leaving debris outside the premises.

The court found no evidence of a sublease, noting the tenant merely allowed related towing companies to temporarily park vehicles.

The court also held the landlord's Notice of Termination was deficient under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act for lacking specificity.

The lease was declared to remain in full force and effect, and the landlord was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to sharp practices.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff following a slip and fall on their property.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendants failed to act promptly, offered no plausible explanation for their two-year delay, and lacked an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of impaired operation and excess blood alcohol.

The trial judge had found breaches of the respondent's s.10(a) and s.10(b) Charter rights, leading to the exclusion of breath samples and acquittal.

The appeal court found no s.10(a) breach but upheld the trial judge's finding of a s.10(b) Charter breach, agreeing with the assessment of "flagrant disrespect" by the police.

Consequently, the appeal court affirmed the trial judge's decision to exclude the breath sample evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter and upheld the acquittal.

This appeal concerned parental responsibility and decision-making for twin children, where one child was alienated from the mother and the other from the father.

The appellant mother sought to overturn a lower court order that maintained the de facto living arrangements (daughter with mother, son with father) and to reinstate previous shared parenting orders or gain sole parental responsibility for the son.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the existing arrangements were in the children's best interests, given the history of failed therapeutic interventions and the lack of a concrete plan for reunification therapy.

The court also confirmed that a material change in circumstances was not required for the motion judge's order, as per a prior consent order.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was the interpretation of the term 'employed' under section 5(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued for a broad interpretation encompassing the formal employment relationship, even though he had not worked or received wages for months prior to his formal termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicators correctly interpreted 'employed' in its statutory context as requiring the exchange of wages for services.

The appellants, former employees of Medcan, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation.

The certification judge had found that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in principle by failing to conduct the preferability analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class actions, specifically failing to consider barriers to access to justice and behaviour modification.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The Attorney General for Ontario applied ex parte for certiorari with mandamus to quash a Justice of the Peace's refusal to issue a production order against textPlus, Inc., a US-based company with a virtual presence in Canada.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace committed jurisdictional errors and errors of law by concluding that the order could not be enforced and by failing to follow binding horizontal precedent regarding virtual presence.

The Court granted the application, quashed the refusal, and compelled the Ontario Court of Justice to issue the production order.

The appellants, two tenants in a residential property, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member breached the duty of procedural fairness by excluding each tenant from portions of the virtual hearing where relevant evidence was given, and then relying on that evidence in the decisions.

The appeals were allowed and the matters remitted to the Board for new hearings before a different member.

The appellant, David Wong, representing a class of shareholders, appealed the summary dismissal of a secondary market misrepresentation class action against Pretium Resources Inc. and its former CEO.

The claim alleged that Pretium failed to publicly disclose concerns about its Brucejack mining project's resource estimate and feasibility study, which had been conveyed by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Strathcona's concerns were not material facts requiring disclosure because they were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and unreliable opinions, not undisputed facts.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's alternative finding that the respondents had conducted a reasonable investigation.

The appeal was dismissed.