Ryan Krahn

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review regarding the revocation of her mother's short-term rental licence.

The mother was deceased, and the moving party relied on a power of attorney and a will to proceed.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to consider dismissing the proceeding.

The court found that the moving party lacked standing, a deceased person cannot hold a non-transferable licence, and the relief sought was unavailable.

The proceeding was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the applicant's 1,127-page application record in a judicial review of a zoning bylaw amendment for supportive housing.

The applicant sought to introduce affidavit evidence regarding other City projects to demonstrate a pattern of closed-mindedness and lack of consultation.

The court partially granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, argumentative, inflammatory, or related to post-decision events, while permitting some evidence regarding the applicant's claims of bias and an improperly restricted record to remain for the panel's consideration.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review regarding Service Ontario's refusal to renew her licence plate due to unpaid parking tickets, seeking a waiver of the fees and $20,000,000 in damages.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering dismissal of the application as frivolous.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, the screening officers' decisions were not subject to judicial review, and the proper parties were not named.

The application was summarily dismissed as frivolous with no order as to costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to revoke a special event permit for a cultural festival after violent protests erupted on the first day.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot since the 2023 festival dates had passed and the 2024 festival proceeded without incident.

The court also noted that the City's decision was substantively reasonable given the immediate risk to public safety, and declined to rule on the jurisdictional and Charter issues.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

The moving party sought to quash the respondent's application for judicial review and motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Land Tribunal decision.

The moving party argued the proceedings were moot due to recent legislative amendments to the Planning Act under Bill 185.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the moving party failed to meet the high threshold of showing the proceedings were manifestly devoid of merit, leaving the statutory interpretation and mootness issues to be decided by the panel hearing the merits.

The applicant sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and an application for judicial review from a summary dismissal by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The applicant requested that the leave motion, appeal, and judicial review be heard together by a single panel, relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar.

The court ordered that the motion for leave to appeal be heard first by a single judge, to respect the legislative deference implicit in the leave requirement, with the judicial review and potential appeal to follow if leave is granted.