Sandra Nishikawa

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a first collective agreement for nurses at a long-term care home.

The union argued that the arbitrator's decision to transition the disability income protection plan to the central agreement terms was unreasonable and lacked adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied the replication principle and statutory criteria, and that the brief reasons were adequate given the parties' prior agreement to a bottom-line decision.

The appellants, two tenants in a residential property, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member breached the duty of procedural fairness by excluding each tenant from portions of the virtual hearing where relevant evidence was given, and then relying on that evidence in the decisions.

The appeals were allowed and the matters remitted to the Board for new hearings before a different member.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs in the amount of $39,350 regarding the appellants' appeal of a decision dismissing their negligence action for failure to pay outstanding costs orders.

The appellants argued the costs orders were illegitimate and stayed pending a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the requirements for security for costs were met under Rule 56.01(1)(c) due to the unpaid costs orders.

The motion was granted, and the appellants were ordered to post security for costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $27,580 for an outstanding landscaping invoice.

At trial, both parties were self-represented.

The deputy judge heard evidence from both parties but did not permit either party to cross-examine the other, despite conflicting evidence regarding who requested changes to the grading plan and the actual balance owing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the Small Claims Court operates in a summary manner, the failure to allow cross-examination or otherwise test the conflicting evidence constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

A new trial was ordered before a different deputy judge.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not file any materials.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed her section 82 application as abandoned and ordered her eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued procedural unfairness because the Board proceeded after she left the virtual hearing, and she disputed the rent arrears calculation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's handling of her departure from the hearing, and holding that the rent calculation was a question of fact outside the court's appellate jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated April 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The appellant, a self-represented tenant, requested an adjournment of his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board due to delays in obtaining transcripts funded by Legal Aid Ontario.

The respondent landlord did not allege any actual prejudice.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment and set a new timetable for the perfection of the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion opposing the confirmation of a report made by an Associate Judge following a consolidated construction lien action.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision of an Associate Justice dismissing her motion to amend her statement of claim to add the Crown and various government ministries as defendants.

On appeal, the appellant abandoned the request to add the ministries and sought only to add the Crown.

The Divisional Court found that the Associate Justice erred in law by failing to apply Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding adding parties.

The court granted the appeal, allowing the appellant to add the Crown as a defendant, noting there was no non-compensable prejudice and the Crown was the proper party.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to his tenancy under the s. 5(j) business exemption.

The Board found the predominant purpose of the tenancy was to operate an Airbnb short-term rental business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test and the tenant's challenge raised issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.

The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Czutrin J. dated January 24, 2022.

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