Richard H. Parker

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent school board to temporarily remove their two children from their school.

The board made the decision after the father received threatening emails from someone with access to the school's computers, which also threatened the children.

The Divisional Court found that the board's decision was reasonable given the safety concerns and the ongoing police investigation, and dismissed the application for judicial review and injunctive relief.

The appellant appealed an order allowing the respondent estate to garnish his partnership income to satisfy a debt.

The Court of Appeal upheld the garnishment but addressed a new issue raised on appeal regarding whether partnership income is protected under the Wages Act.

While finding that partnership income is not 'wages' under the Act, the Court held that equitable jurisdiction allows for the reduction of garnished amounts to protect self-employed income for living expenses.

The appeal was dismissed, but the issue of protecting the partnership income was remitted to the Superior Court.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting judgment of $13,413.04 to the respondent, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference absent a palpable and overriding error.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his conclusions and provided a sufficient basis for appellate review.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interim spousal support order of $750 per month, arguing he could not work for medical reasons and relying on a modest disability income.

The motions judge had imputed income to him based on his past earnings and set an early trial date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim order and noting that the issue was not of general public importance as required by Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had received multiple indulgences and failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal had any merit.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which had dismissed his claim for general damages on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The tenant and his family had been assaulted by the landlord's friends in an attempt to force them to vacate, breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law, finding that the residual power to 'make any other order that it considers appropriate' under the Tenant Protection Act includes the jurisdiction to award damages for breach of contract.

The Court allowed the appeal and awarded the tenant $4,000 in damages.

The appellant was successful in his appeal against the Law Society of Upper Canada and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the time spent and hourly rates were generally acceptable, the total amounts claimed were excessive given the reasonable expectations of the losing party and the historical scale of costs in such appeals.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 for fees at the Divisional Court level and $12,000 for fees at the appeal tribunal level, plus disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the interpretation of a commercial agreement and alleged misrepresentations about a liquor licence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the terms of the liquor licence were generally known to the public and could be learned through due diligence.

The court also upheld the finding of fact that no misrepresentation was made and found no basis for granting relief from forfeiture.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the Law Society's dismissal of his application for readmission.

The Law Society panels had found that the appellant met most criteria for readmission but failed to show he had purged his guilt and was extremely unlikely to re-offend, primarily because he continued to deny that he intentionally misappropriated funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the panels erred in law by effectively making an admission of guilt a precondition for reinstatement, contrary to established legal principles.

The Court ordered the appellant's readmission, remitting the matter to a Hearing Panel solely to determine appropriate conditions.

The appellants appealed a child protection order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to set aside the order and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal was heard subject to the publication ban provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant appealed an order striking out portions of his Amended Statement of Claim on the basis of res judicata, abuse of process, or vexatious proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, noting that claims for lost income as a lawyer lacked an air of reality since the appellant had been disbarred for misappropriation of trust funds.

The court also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding the motions judge's jurisdiction to award costs and allegations of bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Master exceeded their mandate under the orders directing the reference by determining the nature of the basis for the amounts owing to the clients.

The lower court order was set aside and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants appealed the decision of the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that the law was properly applied.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,500.

The landlord sued the tenant and guarantor for damages.

The residential lease was for a one-year fixed term, which expired and automatically became a month-to-month tenancy under s. 104(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The Divisional Court found the guarantor liable for damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory deemed renewal does not apply to guarantors.

Because the guarantee contained no language regarding renewals, it expired at the end of the first year.

The trial judge's decision was restored.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding him liable for misappropriating funds from an estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of liability, agreeing there was no genuine issue for trial on that point.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantum of recovery, finding that the motions judge erred by compounding interest and that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding amounts that should have been credited to the appellant.

The judgment was set aside and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed with respect to the amount of recovery.

The appellants appealed from a decision for which the court expressly adopted the reasons and result of the judge below.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, lifted the stay, and fixed appeal costs in favour of the respondent at $1,000.

The endorsement contains no further substantive analysis beyond concurrence with the reasons below.