Sandra Chapnik

The appellant appealed a family law order and both parties sought to introduce fresh evidence, including report cards and updated financial information.

The Divisional Court relaxed the usual rules for admitting fresh evidence, noting the case involved the best interests of children.

Finding that the new evidence established a change in circumstances and could have affected the decision below, the court allowed the appeal in part, directing a new hearing on the issues with updated financial disclosure.

The court also allowed the appeal regarding retroactive support, as the respondent conceded it had been satisfied.

The Board of Trustees appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that reversed the Board's refusal of the respondents' claim for compensation regarding a stolen vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence and that the Tribunal correctly addressed the issue of willful blindness without improperly shifting the onus to the Board.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owed considerable unremitted retail sales tax from a previous dealership and had failed to disclose a pending fraud charge on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no legal errors and its findings of fact were not clearly wrong.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant applied for an enhanced A-Z driver's licence and submitted a medical report that was equivocal regarding his alcohol use.

The Registrar demanded further medical information, which the applicant refused to provide, resulting in the suspension of his existing 'G' licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Registrar's requirement for additional information and subsequent licence suspension were not unreasonable.

The applicant father appealed a motion judge's decision varying child support, arguing the judge erred by refusing to impute income to the respondent mother, refusing to make the support increase and extraordinary expenses retroactive, and denying his claims regarding an educational fund.

The father also sought to introduce new evidence of the mother's income tax return.

The Divisional Court admitted the new evidence but found it would not have changed the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the motion judge made no error in fact or law and applied the correct standard of review, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought an order of prohibition to prevent the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario from hearing a complaint referred to it by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, and that the Tribunal was incorrect or unreasonable in deciding it had jurisdiction.

The complaint was dismissed, with detailed reasons to follow.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that found he had illegally locked out the respondent tenants and failed to accommodate a tenant's disability.

The landlord argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal waived the 10-day notice requirement and refused his request for an adjournment to obtain police records.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment denied the landlord a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constituted a fundamental error in law.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The tenant brought a motion to dismiss the landlord's appeal for delay, arguing the landlord failed to serve and file proof that the transcript of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal proceedings was ordered within the prescribed time.

The landlord had delayed the appeal for nearly two years and only recently ordered the transcript.

The Divisional Court balanced the interests of the parties, noted the substantial change in circumstances including the loss of the residence by fire and change of ownership, and found the landlord responsible for the excessive delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following an appeal regarding compensation for expropriated properties, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that success was equally divided between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the claimants, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion of the appeal.

However, the City of Toronto was substantially successful on the most time-consuming and financially significant issues against the claimants.

The court awarded the City costs fixed at $120,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board decision upholding her son's limited expulsion for bringing a concealed knife to school and threatening another student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the principal's inquiry and the board's appeal hearing were procedurally fair.

The court held that the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the expulsion did not violate the student's or parent's section 7 Charter rights.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring it to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for an arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement against a statutory backdrop is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion—that the reintroduction of individual health premiums revived the employer's obligation to pay 100% of the employees' costs for OHIP—was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants appealed an order certifying a class action regarding defective blood glucose monitors.

The motion judge certified the action on the basis that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in 'waiver of tort', seeking restitutionary remedies of constructive trust or disgorgement of profits rather than compensatory damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the law regarding waiver of tort as an independent cause of action and the availability of the requested restitutionary remedies is unsettled.

Therefore, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims would fail, and the issues should be resolved on a full factual record at trial.

The City of London appealed a decision granting the respondents' application to overturn the Chief Building Official's (CBO) refusal to issue unconditional building permits.

The CBO had issued permits conditional on the repair of a defective gabion wall on the property, which was subject to a site plan agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the CBO acted outside his statutory authority.

The Court held that site plan approval constitutes 'applicable law' under the Building Code Act, and the CBO lawfully imposed conditions bearing a logical nexus to the property's use and the ongoing maintenance obligations in the site plan agreement.

The appellants appealed an order vacating their construction lien and dismissing their lien action for failing to set the action down for trial within the two-year statutory limitation period under the Construction Lien Act.

The appellants argued it was impossible to set the action down because the fundamental issue of whether the work was lienable was under reserve by the Divisional Court at the time the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no practical or legal impossibility preventing the appellants from complying with the strict statutory requirements to set the action down for trial.

The appellants appealed an order vacating their construction lien and dismissing their action for failing to set the matter down for trial within the two-year limitation period under section 37(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The appellants argued it was impossible to set the action down because the fundamental issue of whether the work was lienable was under reserve by the Divisional Court at the time the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no practical or legal impossibility preventing the appellants from complying with the strict statutory requirements.

The respondent employee accepted a severance package and signed a full and final release of all claims against the applicant employers.

She subsequently filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the release did not bar her complaint because the employers had not complied with the Act prior to the release.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that parties may contract out of the Pay Equity Act when settling a claim, and the unequivocal release barred the employee's complaint.

Following the dismissal of their appeals regarding construction lien rights, the appellants and respondents made written submissions on costs.

The Divisional Court fixed the respondent Rumble's costs at $20,515.72 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by Cassidy and R & A. The court found the respondent Dana's claim for $41,024.52 excessive given the lack of novel arguments on appeal, and fixed Dana's costs at $15,800.00, payable by Kennedy.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a four-story parking garage from the commercial property class to the residential property class.

The parking garage was used exclusively by residents of adjacent condominium towers under long-term license agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property was 'used for residential purposes' within the meaning of section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98, as the ultimate use of the property was residential parking appurtenant to living accommodations, regardless of ownership.

The respondents brought a motion to continue a sealing order over the court file in an application for judicial review of decisions to exclude and transfer students following an alleged violent incident.

The respondents argued that the sealing order was necessary under the Education Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that a complete sealing order was not necessary, as a less intrusive alternative was available.

The court rescinded the sealing order but directed that the court file be edited to remove the names and identifying information of the accused, the victim, and the witnesses.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order setting aside a noting in default.

The motions judge had set aside the noting in default because the requisition incorrectly stated the ground as failure to file a statement of claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order and concluding that the issues raised were not of general importance.