Sandra Nishikawa

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 party sought leave to appeal the order of Krawchenko J. dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, 1350057 Ontario Ltd.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $6,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

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.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the tenancy was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under s. 5(i) because the tenant was required to share a kitchen and bathroom with the landlord's daughter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's interpretation of the exemption or its factual findings regarding the daughter's residency and use of the shared facilities.

The applicant sought judicial review of five decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal spanning from 2008 to 2018.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first four decisions due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting both presumed and actual prejudice as the Tribunal's records had been destroyed.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's 2018 decision refusing to reconsider a 2009 decision, finding it reasonable given the unexplained seven-year delay in requesting the reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award to the Divisional Court.

The court determined that under the Arbitration Act, 1991, jurisdiction over the appeal lies with the Superior Court of Justice, not the Divisional Court.

Finding the jurisdictional error to be an oversight, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental distress and moral damages based on the same factual matrix, barred the human rights application.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the civil claim essentially sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements despite not explicitly pleading the Code.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, appealed a decision dismissing an application for a declaration that the respondent improperly took approximately $100,000 from the deceased.

At the hearing, the Divisional Court raised the issue of monetary jurisdiction, noting the amount in dispute exceeded its jurisdiction and did not fall under the Estates Act.

The self-represented appellant requested the appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal.

Finding an arguable case on the merits and no prejudice to the non-attending respondent, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 payable forthwith to the responding construction company.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Bonsawin J. dated November 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal a decision dismissing their appeal of an Assessment Officer's decision regarding unpaid legal fees.

The moving parties, who were self-represented, argued that the delay was caused by illness and confusion over the appeal period.

Applying the four-factor test from Catalyst Capital Group, the court found that while the merits of the appeal were weak, the delay was not excessive and the interests of justice favoured granting the extension.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The applicant political party sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's responses to its complaints regarding the exclusion of its candidates from third-party organized election debates.

The applicant argued that the exclusion constituted illegal campaign contributions and violated Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Chief Electoral Officer's disposition of the complaints did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision and did not affect any legal rights or privileges, and therefore was not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court sentenced an offender for historic kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, choking, and threat offences committed against two vulnerable sex workers in 1986.

Applying the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, the totality principle, and the Charter protection against double punishment, the court rejected the submission that a prior Colorado sentence barred or substantially reduced sentence in Canada, although it treated the U.S. sentence as a collateral consequence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including prolonged confinement, repeated sexual violence, use of weapons, the victims' vulnerability, offending while on bail, and a serious prior record, while giving limited mitigation for age and harsh remand conditions.

A 19-year global sentence was imposed, with 3303 days' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, SOIRA, and lifetime weapons prohibition orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Price J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Associate Justice C. Wiebe.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,667.93 to the responding party.