Robert E. Charney

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Manoravy Thillainathan, to amend his Notice of Application and file supplementary affidavits in a proceeding against the Hindu Temple Society of Canada (HTSC).

The HTSC opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as moot.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the admissibility of new evidence.

The court finds that the challenge to the 2021 election is now moot, declines to allow amendments to add a monitor or challenge the 2023 election, and refuses to admit the new affidavits at this stage.

The application is discontinued as against the 26 named former directors and officers, and only the HTSC remains as respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that calculated his partial loss of earnings benefits based on an ability to earn minimum wage.

The applicant argued he was entitled to full benefits because he did not complete his labour market re-entry plan, having voluntarily withdrawn to take a temporary job.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43(4) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The decision concerns an estate dispute between Glen Last and Craig Last (personally and as joint Estate Trustee for the Estate of Jacqueline Last), with TD Canada Trust as a respondent.

Glen alleged that Craig misappropriated significant estate assets and failed to account for his management of the estate, seeking a reduction of Craig’s share and other relief.

The court found that Craig failed to provide a proper accounting, drew an adverse inference, and ordered a substantial reduction of Craig’s share of the estate, as well as costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and reconsideration decision which found his motor vehicle accident injuries were subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued his pre-existing shoulder injury, psychological symptoms, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that while the adjudicator made a minor factual error regarding a physiotherapy visit, the overall conclusion was well-supported by medical evidence, including reports from the respondent's assessors.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Steele J. dated October 30, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The respondent's counsel advised the court of a potential conflict of interest.

The applicants indicated they had no concerns and were content to proceed as scheduled.

Given the parties' positions, the panel directed that the matter would proceed as scheduled.

The applicant, Roderick John Melson, sought a declaration that cement blocks placed by the City of Kawartha Lakes trespassed on his property and an injunction for their removal.

The City argued the blocks were on public land forming part of the Victoria Rail Trail and were placed to address safety concerns caused by Melson's unauthorized use of the trail for industrial truck access.

The court found the City's land survey confirmed the blocks were on public land and that Melson could not establish a prescriptive easement, as his use was not continuous for 20 years.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an extension of time to request a review of a prior consent eviction order.

At a case conference, the court considered the conditions for maintaining the statutory stay of eviction pending the appeal.

Finding that the tenant had paid no rent since the LTB proceedings and owed significant arrears, the court ordered the tenant to pay $10,000 in prior arrears, 50% of recent arrears, and ongoing monthly rent to maintain the stay.

Failure to make the payments would result in the stay being lifted.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision finding he served an N12 notice of termination in bad faith and ordering him to pay damages to the tenant.

The landlord filed his Notice of Appeal nearly 60 days late and sought an extension of time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension, finding the landlord failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the time limit or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

In the alternative, the court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's refusal to grant an adjournment, and rejecting the landlord's argument that the tenant's bad faith application was barred by res judicata.

The plaintiffs hired the defendant contractor to build a custom home, but the project suffered from significant delays and construction deficiencies, leading the defendant to abandon the site.

The plaintiffs completed the construction using other contractors and sued the defendant and his corporation for breach of contract, while the defendant counterclaimed for unpaid amounts.

The court found the defendant contractor personally liable because he failed to clearly disclose his corporate status in the contract.

Ultimately, the court granted judgment to the plaintiffs for $193,496 in completion and repair costs, while dismissing the claims for punitive damages, lost income, and the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff, Muhammad Asif, brought an urgent, ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and a Mareva injunction regarding property at 341 Lawford Road, Vaughan, Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the property had already been sold by secured creditors under a power of sale, and that Asif’s equitable mortgage claim could not take priority over registered interests.

The court also found that notice should have been given to secured and judgment creditors, and that the plaintiff failed to provide full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The decision reviews the requirements for ex parte Mareva injunctions and the duty of full disclosure.

The applicant, Dalren Limited, sought payment of a final invoice and construction lien holdback, arguing that the prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act applied.

The respondents, Loadstar Trailers Inc. and 1978327 Ontario Ltd., contended that these provisions did not apply because the procurement process for the improvement commenced before July 1, 2018, falling under the Act's transitional rules.

The court found that the procurement process indeed began before the critical date, and that the applicant, despite not owning the land at the outset, qualified as an 'owner' under the Act for the purpose of commencing the procurement process.

Consequently, the prompt payment provisions were deemed inapplicable, and the application was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages from the Defendants for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property.

The property was subsequently sold to the Defendants under a July 7, 2022 Extension Agreement.

The central issue was the interpretation of a clause in the Extension Agreement that reserved the Plaintiffs' right to sue for damages for "failure to close on the scheduled closing date." The Plaintiffs argued this referred to the original APS closing date, while the Defendants contended it referred to the extended closing date.

The court, applying principles of contractual interpretation, found that the "scheduled closing date" referred to the extended closing date, meaning the Defendants were released from liability for the original breach if they closed on the extended date.

The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the Defendants.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff Yu Feng's action for delay or as an abuse of process, arguing that the 2018 action was duplicative of a 2013 action that had already been dismissed for delay.

The court found an inordinate and inexcusable 10-year delay, counting from the original 2013 action, and that the 2018 action was an abuse of process for circumventing rules for amending pleadings.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, particularly regarding the defendants' lost counterclaim and unavailable witnesses.

The motion to dismiss Yu Feng's action for delay was granted.

The Applicants sought the appointment of a receiver over several respondent companies, including those jointly owned and those solely controlled by one of the individual respondents, due to alleged misappropriation of funds, mortgage defaults, and corporate oppression.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory bases for appointing a receiver (Courts of Justice Act, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Business Corporations Act) were not met.

The court determined there was no underlying action for interlocutory relief, no irreparable harm shown given the sufficient value of the secured property, and the request for relief against solely-owned companies was brought too late.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that removed the respondent as a party to a rent arrears application.

The LTB had found the respondent vacated the unit before September 1, 2021, and was therefore not a 'tenant in possession' under section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act, depriving the LTB of jurisdiction over him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for possession and its application of that test to the facts was a question of mixed fact and law, which is not subject to appeal under section 210(1) of the Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $35,000 for unpaid ATM machines.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by not enforcing a forum selection clause designating Alberta, and by finding the debt was owed to the specific corporate entity that sent the invoice.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge properly applied the 'strong cause' test to decline enforcing the forum selection clause and reasonably inferred the debt was owed to the invoicing entity.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to reduce the pre- and post-judgment interest rate from 18% to 5% per annum, as the invoice failed to state an annualized rate as required by section 4 of the Interest Act.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the procedural management of two related actions (Desiccare and Cargill) involving the same self-represented plaintiff.

The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's summons motion to examine non-parties and the defendants' jurisdiction motion in the Cargill action should be heard separately or together.

Citing judicial economy and the plaintiff's outstanding costs orders from previous unsuccessful appeals, the court ordered that both motions be heard concurrently by the same judge.

The decision also touched upon the principle of not ordering examinations before jurisdiction is decided.