Robyn M. Ryan Bell

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that his 'ethical veganism' was not a creed under the Human Rights Code.

Prior to the decision, the parties had settled the underlying complaints, withdrawing them and agreeing not to refile, though preserving the right to seek judicial review on the preliminary issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case.

The Gamma defendants sought to quash a summons to witness served on Harry Wang in relation to a pending jurisdiction motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to examine Mr. Wang under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as he was in a position to provide relevant evidence regarding whether the Gamma foreign defendants do business in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the plaintiffs had satisfied the relevancy and evidentiary screening and that the proposed examination was not an abuse of process.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following the successful anti-SLAPP motion by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and Bernie Farber.

The court awards full indemnity costs of $49,319.13 to the moving parties, finding no basis to depart from the statutory presumption under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews the relevant factors for costs, including proportionality, complexity, and settlement offers, and finds the amount sought to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiff, Music and Beyond Performing Arts, brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement signed at the conclusion of a mediation.

The defendant, Nico van Duyvenbode, raised several objections, including claims of duress, mediator bias, and procedural irregularities.

The court found no merit in any of the defendant’s arguments and granted the motion to enforce the settlement, holding that the interests of justice required enforcement.

The court also addressed preliminary issues regarding the admissibility of a late affidavit and the right to examine witnesses, ultimately allowing the affidavit but giving it little weight.

The court granted the motion of Sicotte Guilbault LLP and Joseph Marcel Denis Sicotte to strike the statement of claim against them, without leave to amend, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, Dean Henderson, alleged fraudulent conveyance, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment in relation to the transfer of assets from Amega Holdings (Barbados) Inc. and Aubrey de Young to the Sicotte defendants.

The court found that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Sicotte defendants, as the pleadings were bald, conclusory, and lacked material facts.

The court also found that the statutory causes of action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and Assignments and Preferences Act could not be made out against the Sicotte defendants, and that the conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims were not properly pleaded.

Leave to amend was denied.

Cary Kaplan, a defendant, brought a motion to dismiss the oppression claim against him by OZ Merchandising Inc. The court granted the motion, finding that the alleged oppressive conduct had been rectified by the Canadian Soccer League Inc.'s admission of successor liability for the Canadian Professional Soccer League Inc.'s liabilities.

Furthermore, the court determined that punitive damages were not an appropriate remedy for rectification in this context and that the claim against Mr. Kaplan was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was brought more than five years after the alleged conduct and his addition to the action.

The applicant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a patient and his registration was revoked.

After being acquitted in a related criminal trial, he sought to re-open the tribunal hearing to introduce fresh evidence.

The tribunal's Case Management Chair dismissed the motion, finding the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction under its rules to re-open the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Chair's interpretation of the tribunal's rules was reasonable and did not provide a statutory exception to the doctrine of functus officio.

Lukus Abraham, the successful applicant in a prior arbitration enforcement application, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondents, Andrew Abraham and A. Abraham Holdings Ltd., argued for partial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs based on the respondents' conduct, finding it not egregious.

However, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of Lukus's Rule 49.10 offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, as the result obtained was as favourable as the offer.

The court fixed costs at $34,000, all-inclusive, to be paid by the respondents within 30 days.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had accumulated over $50,000 in rent arrears and filed an appeal alleging evidentiary and procedural errors by the Board.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was manifestly devoid of merit as it failed to raise any extricable question of law.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process brought solely to delay the eviction, as evidenced by the tenant's correspondence boasting about using the appeal process to halt enforcement.

The defendants requisitioned an order to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the defendants, lawyers, and judges, and sought to relitigate matters already determined in prior proceedings.

The court found the action to be manifestly devoid of merit, consisting of scandalous attacks and an evident attempt to relitigate decided issues.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

This case involved cross-applications concerning the distribution of fire insurance proceeds following significant damage to a shared property.

Bonny Bunda sought the release of approximately two-thirds of the funds held in trust, while Andrew Carry requested all funds be paid into court and a reference for distribution.

The court granted Bonny Bunda's application, ordering a specific amount released to her and the remainder paid into court for resolution in Small Claims Court.

The court determined that an email from Andrew Carry's counsel, stating his claim amount, was not a without prejudice communication and could be relied upon.

This case concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) and Bernie Farber against multiple plaintiffs who initiated a $44 million action following the Ottawa protests and the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

The plaintiffs alleged defamation and civil conspiracy, claiming CAHN provided false information to government and police, influencing the emergency measures and freezing of assets.

The court dismissed the action against CAHN, finding the plaintiffs failed to particularize their claims, lacked substantial merit, and could not overcome valid defences such as non-compliance with notice periods under the Libel and Slander Act and the Limitations Act.

The court also determined that the public interest in protecting CAHN's expression on a matter of public interest outweighed the harm alleged by the plaintiffs, and declined to award damages to CAHN.

The applicants sought costs against the estate trustee, Larry Atkinson, in his personal capacity, after the underlying application was stayed due to the estate's bankruptcy.

The court found Mr. Atkinson's conduct from December 2023 onward to be sufficiently unreasonable, particularly his strategic timing of the bankruptcy assignment, failure to respond to inquiries, and proceeding with a without-notice motion without full disclosure, including the breach of an undertaking.

The court awarded the applicants partial indemnity costs of $18,242.62 against Mr. Atkinson personally.

Lukus Abraham applied to enforce an arbitration award against Andrew Abraham and A. Abraham Holdings Ltd. The award stemmed from a settlement agreement breach, where Andrew ceased payments.

Andrew sought to set aside the award and appeal, alleging procedural unfairness and errors in quantum calculation.

The court found Andrew's arguments to be substantive attacks on the arbitrator's findings, which were immune from appeal under the arbitration agreement, rather than valid procedural fairness issues under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court also dismissed Andrew's attempts to introduce new evidence and an equitable set-off argument due to different parties.

The application to enforce the award was granted, with the court noting the relative hardship weighed in favor of enforcement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (now LECA) denying his request for a review of a police investigation into his complaints of excessive force during encampment clearings.

The applicant also moved to set aside a single judge's order quashing his judicial review application against the Toronto Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge correctly applied the 'plain and obvious' test and properly concluded that the applicant had to exhaust the statutory review process under section 71 of the Police Services Act before seeking judicial review.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application against LECA, holding that the Director's decision to deny the late request for review was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

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

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated April 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,390.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.