Robert E. Charney

The respondent father brought a motion for a temporary stay of child and spousal support enforcement pending a motion to change.

The parties consented to a temporary suspension of child support during the months the child attended university outside Canada, and a stay of enforcement of support arrears.

The court dismissed the remainder of the motion, finding the father failed to establish a strong prima facie case for a temporary reduction in spousal support or a complete stay of child support during the summer months.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the responding party's family law application on the basis that the issues were already resolved by a valid divorce judgment in China.

The responding party had initiated the divorce proceedings in China, which granted the divorce and ordered child support, but deferred property division.

The court found the Chinese divorce valid under the Divorce Act.

Consequently, the responding party's claims for divorce, spousal support, and child support in Ontario were dismissed as an attempt at forum shopping.

The claim for equalization of net family property was stayed pending the outcome of the ongoing property proceedings in China.

A long-haul truck driver brought claims for wrongful dismissal and unpaid overtime after his employment was terminated for cause following a second failed random drug test for cannabis.

The court held that the employer's drug and alcohol policy for safety-sensitive drivers was reasonable, clearly communicated, consistently enforced, and proportionately applied, and that no duty to accommodate arose because the evidence did not establish an actual or perceived drug dependency disability.

The court further held that any overtime claim older than two years before the issuance of the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the remaining overtime claim failed for lack of reliable proof.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision regarding rent arrears and maintenance issues, specifically the lack of a dishwasher and in-unit laundry facilities.

The LTB had found the landlord complied with the lease by providing basement laundry access and ended a 20% rent abatement.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding lease interpretation and factual findings about the basement's condition.

However, the court remitted the issue of calculating the 'lawful rent' back to the LTB to consider the application of specific statutory discount rules under the Residential Tenancies Act that were not addressed in the original decision.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendants from dissipating assets pending the resolution of a breach of contract action related to a vendor take back mortgage.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants defaulted on several obligations and were dissipating assets, pointing to a declining business and the refinancing of a principal residence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud or that the defendants were attempting to remove or dissipate assets to avoid judgment.

The applicant father brought an urgent application to anonymize the style of cause in a family court proceeding, after previously being denied this relief by the trial judge and being directed by a Divisional Court case management judge to bring the request before the appeal panel.

The Superior Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant failed to personally serve the respondent, failed to provide the required notice period, and improperly attempted to circumvent the clear case management directions of the Divisional Court.

Shareholders of a closely held private corporation sought a certificate of pending litigation against the former director's personal residence, alleging misappropriation of corporate funds.

The former director moved to discharge the CPL so that a scheduled property sale could close.

The court found a material non-disclosure on the ex parte motion — the moving parties failed to disclose the former director's responding affidavit explaining that his property had been pledged as security for the corporation's operating line of credit.

The court further found that the primary relief sought was repayment or damages, not a proprietary interest in land, and that the moving parties' interests could be adequately protected by having the net proceeds of sale paid into court.

The CPL was ordered discharged upon payment of net sale proceeds into court, with a disputed $49,990 charge in favour of the former director's law firm also to be paid into court pending further order.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and its adjudicators.

The HRTO had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review LTB decisions or the conduct of its adjudicators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant had already unsuccessfully challenged the same LTB decisions through a combined appeal and judicial review.

The self-represented mortgagors brought a motion, treated from a notice of application, seeking a determination of the amount owing under a mortgage together with broader discharge-related and damages remedies following an earlier summary judgment decision.

The court held that all relief other than fixing the mortgage balance fell outside the case conference direction, improperly attempted to reargue the dismissed counterclaim, or would have to be advanced, if at all, in a new action subject to issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel.

On the merits, the court rejected the alleged waiver of interest and the borrowers' attempt to deduct again payments already reflected in the agreed principal balance.

The mortgagee's calculation was accepted, fixing the amount owing at $791,159.83 as of the hearing date, inclusive of accrued interest, the prepayment charge, and the tax account payoff.

The applicant was previously successful in an application to cancel a matrimonial home designation registered by the respondent, which had interfered with her mortgage renewal.

The parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that the applicant made a reasonable offer to settle and obtained an order as favourable as her offer, triggering the costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that costs should await the outcome of his application to set aside the separation agreement.

Costs were fixed at $18,500 plus disbursements, payable forthwith.

The appellants filed notices of appeal in the Divisional Court from a Family Court order that granted sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and a $452,000 equalization payment, and declared a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, it lacked jurisdiction because the equalization payment exceeded $50,000 and the order was made under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Law Act.

The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

In a motor vehicle negligence action, the court addressed whether responding parties could file additional affidavit evidence as a sur-reply in response to the moving defendants’ reply evidence on a summary judgment motion.

The request required further amendments to a timetable that had already been revised multiple times through repeated case conferences.

Applying summary judgment burden principles for rear-end collisions and procedural fairness principles governing reply and sur-reply evidence, the court held the parties had already had a fair opportunity to put their best evidentiary record forward.

Emphasizing finality and proportionality, the court refused further evidentiary expansion and directed the matter to proceed on the existing schedule.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting the respondent an extension of time to file an amended statement of claim.

The respondent had brought a motion to vary a previous order under Rule 59.06, but the motion judge granted relief under Rule 3.02(1) without prior notice to the appellants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the appellants were denied the opportunity to file evidence of prejudice caused by the delay.

The matter was remitted to a different motion judge.

The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.

The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The tenants sought to appeal a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board after filing multiple unsuccessful requests for review.

The Divisional Court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a consent order requires leave of the court, which the tenants had not sought.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, terminating the statutory stay of eviction, without prejudice to the tenants' right to seek an extension of time and leave to appeal.

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 awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,582.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Tzimas J. dated August 1, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,142.00.

The moving party, McMaster University, brought a motion for leave to proceed with an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's determination, and requested a stay pending the review.

The Divisional Court granted leave to proceed with the judicial review but denied the request for a stay.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $8,800 to follow in the cause.