Sandra Nishikawa

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Lafrenière J. dated January 21, 2022.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a government procurement Request for Bids (RFB) for identity card production and the subsequent dismissal of its bid dispute complaint.

The applicant argued that the RFB's domestic production requirement violated the non-discrimination provisions of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found that the administrative decision dismissing the complaint was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the test for necessity under the public safety exception of CETA.

The Court quashed both the decision and the RFB, finding that the domestic production requirement was not justified on the record.

The moving party tenant sought to vary a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The tenant had appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction and arrears order but repeatedly failed to deliver his appeal materials despite multiple extensions of time.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the case management judge's discretionary decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the tenant's repeated failure to meet court-ordered schedules.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $2,500 on consent, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to confirm an Associate Justice's order that enforced a default payment provision of $286,061.10 under a settlement agreement.

The respondent's late payment was due to junior counsel being distracted by her wedding and honeymoon.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the Associate Justice erred in enforcing the default provision.

The appeal and request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the respondents' tenancy in a rooming house.

The landlord argued the tenancy was exempt under s. 5(i) of the Act because she occasionally stayed in unoccupied rooms and later moved into the building.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the relationship is characterized at the time it commenced.

The court affirmed that occasional stays do not constitute 'living in the building' for the purposes of the shared-facility exemption.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of an employment standards officer's decision, over ten months after the decision was rendered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was excessive, there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, and the respondent would suffer prejudice.

Furthermore, the court found no apparent grounds for relief, noting the moving party failed to pursue a de novo review before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The tenants brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that required the landlords to return possession of the rental unit.

The landlords had previously exercised self-help to evict the tenants while they were out of the country.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to lift the stay, finding the tenants failed to demonstrate unusual hardship as they were residing in Dubai and had no firm plans to return.

The court also dismissed the tenants' alternative requests for an interlocutory injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The applicant, Shaji Bashir Ahmad, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 46 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that defence delay accounted for the excess, while the defence contended the delay was due to the Crown's late and incomplete disclosure of cell phone search warrants, ITOs, and extracted data.

The court found that the defence's waivers of delay were uninformed due to the Crown's disclosure failures, which included police oversight in not informing the Crown of the warrants and the Crown's erroneous assertion that the data was unreadable.

The court attributed significant portions of the delay to the Crown and found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The appellant purchased a property formerly owned by a library board, which was subject to a registered restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use.

The registered covenant failed to identify the benefitted lands, rendering it legally unenforceable.

The respondent, owner of the adjacent lands, successfully applied to a motion judge to rectify the Land Titles Registry to include the benefitted lands.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the rectification, holding that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice of the benefitted lands.

The court emphasized that constructive notice is insufficient to defeat a registered interest under the Land Titles Act, and the appellant was entitled to rely on the registry's mirror and curtain principles.

The court issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.

The defendant sought her costs.

The plaintiff argued costs should be denied due to the defendant's conduct giving rise to the litigation.

The court rejected this argument, noting the defendant's conduct in the litigation was appropriate.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount of $2,500 for leave and $5,000 for the appeal, though limited because the co-defendant hospital made the majority of the submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which denied his request to amend his application and dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and colour by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the failure to hire with the applicant's age, race, or colour.

The court also found the Tribunal reasonably denied the request to amend the application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants brought a motion in writing to amend a previous decision of the Divisional Court, which had allowed their appeal but did not award costs of the underlying action due to a misunderstanding that they were not sought.

As no order had yet been issued or entered, the court remained seized under Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the appellants were entitled to costs of the action based on their successful appeal, and awarded $25,000 in costs.

The defendants appealed a decision certifying a class action for intrusion upon seclusion.

The claim arose after a hospital nurse improperly accessed thousands of patient records to steal narcotics from an automated dispensing unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that the nurse's fleeting access to limited health information for the sole purpose of stealing drugs did not meet the 'highly offensive' threshold required for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed from interlocutory orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that their notice of appeal automatically stayed the proceedings, including a review of an eviction order.

The Divisional Court held that section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not confer a right of appeal from an interlocutory order, and therefore the appeal did not stay the proceedings.

The court also found that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness, as they deliberately chose not to attend the review hearing.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a conveyance, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in considering an involuntary statement but applied the curative proviso, deeming the error harmless given overwhelming evidence of impairment and realistic risk of danger.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision interpreting the overtime provisions of a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that overtime pay was based on hours actually worked rather than scheduled hours.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's interpretation was logical, transparent, and justified by the wording of the collective agreement.

The court also dismissed a motion to admit fresh evidence, finding the evidence was already before the arbitrator and not essential to the decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated January 28, 2022.

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

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.