Sandra Nishikawa

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal and the motion for leave to appeal itself.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the underlying order.

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 Speyer J. dated October 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,825.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed by the parties, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent construction manager its share of cost savings under a construction management contract.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the contract, her refusal to strike an affidavit, and her finding that the cost savings were lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's contractual interpretation or her conclusion that cost savings constitute a lienable service.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to change child support.

He argued the motion judge erred by failing to impute income to the respondent and by refusing to order her to pay a proportionate share of his childcare and transportation costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for intentional under-employment or in the finding that the childcare costs were neither necessary nor reasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages and indemnification arising from the purchase of a defective commercial truck.

The trial judge found that the appellants breached the contract by failing to provide a reasonably fit vehicle and subsequently failing to honour an agreement to exchange the truck.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on breach of contract and indemnification, finding no palpable and overriding error in the interpretation of the contract or the admission of parol evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the action against the individual appellants because there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil or find them personally liable for the corporation's breach of contract.

At a case conference, the Landlord and Tenant Board sought to proceed with a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review.

The applicant argued the tribunal record should be produced first.

The court ordered that the motion to quash should proceed and set a timetable for the motion materials.

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

The Divisional Court noted that the motion below was on consent and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination complaint due to delay and denying reconsideration.

The applicant, who was on sick leave for breast cancer, received a notice in 2014 that her position was eliminated and she would be laid off upon her return to work.

She filed her HRTO application in 2018.

The HRTO found the triggering event for the one-year limitation period was the 2014 notice, not her future return to work.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the case conference, the moving party advised she would proceed by appeal if the respondents did not oppose an extension of time and if the judicial review application could be held in abeyance pending the outcome of her appeal and the Court of Appeal's decision in Yatar.

The respondents did not oppose the extension.

The court granted the extension of time to file the notice of appeal and ordered the judicial review application to be held in abeyance.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs pursuant to a consent order.

The Divisional Court awarded the responding parties costs in the amount of $7,500, all inclusive, for the appeal and motion for leave to appeal.

The Applicants sought judicial review of Ontario's Mathematics Proficiency Test (MPT), a standardized test required for teacher certification.

They argued the MPT violated s. 15 of the Charter by having a disproportionate adverse impact on racialized teacher candidates.

The Divisional Court found that the MPT infringed s. 15, as statistical evidence showed significant disparities in success rates for Black and Indigenous candidates.

The Court further held that the infringement could not be justified under s. 1, as the Respondent failed to show the MPT minimally impaired the rights of racialized candidates, given the availability of less impairing alternatives like requiring math courses in Bachelor of Education programs.

The legislative provisions creating the MPT were declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The appellant veterinarian appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding he engaged in professional misconduct by dispensing and reselling veterinary drugs to pharmacies in large quantities, contrary to s. 33(2)(d) of the General Regulation under the Veterinarians Act.

The appellant challenged the validity of the regulation, arguing it was ultra vires, vague, overbroad, and improperly enacted without procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the regulation was validly enacted within the College's statutory authority and that the terms 'reasonably limited quantities' and 'temporary shortage' were not unconstitutionally vague.

The court upheld the finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of a one-month suspension, public reprimand, and costs, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 on an unpaid invoice for engineering services.

The trial judge had rejected the appellants' limitation defence, finding the limitation period was suspended during settlement discussions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The court held that the limitation period expired before any settlement discussions took place, as the appellants had refused to pay the full invoice amount more than two years prior to the commencement of the action.

The judgment and costs order were set aside.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was retroactively revoked due to a prior finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse, applied for reinstatement.

The Registrar determined the application was premature, interpreting the five-year waiting period under subsection 33(4.1) of the Act as starting from the date of the deemed revocation rather than the date of the original discipline order.

The Divisional Court found the Registrar's interpretation unreasonable, as it ignored the clear statutory language and context, and quashed the decision, ordering the Registrar to refer the reinstatement application to the discipline committee.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order finding his two children in need of protection and placing them in the sole custody of the mother.

The father, who had not seen the children in over four years, alleged widespread misconduct by judges, lawyers, and social workers, but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the motion judge's decision, and upheld the refusal to grant an adjournment.

The self-represented applicant moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's orders adding the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal as a party to his judicial review application and dismissing the application for extreme delay.

The applicant argued that s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Divisional Court's test for delay violated the Charter and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no constitutional violations, no error in adding the Tribunal as a party, and no error in dismissing the application due to an extraordinary and unexplained 12-year delay.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee to suspend his certificate of registration on an interim basis.

The suspension followed complaints that the applicant failed to wear a mask during patient examinations, in breach of an undertaking he had signed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's process was procedurally fair and its decision to impose an interim suspension was reasonable given the risk of harm to patients and the applicant's ungovernability.

The applicant sought to enforce a $1 million USD arbitral award obtained in China against the respondent for unpaid brake pads.

The respondent sought an adjournment of the enforcement application and an order for security for costs, while the applicant cross-moved for an order requiring the respondent to pay the arbitral award into court.

The motion judge ordered the applicant to post security for costs and dismissed the cross-motion.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to undertake a holistic analysis of the justness of the security for costs order, and set it aside.

However, the court upheld the refusal to order the advance payment of the arbitral award into court, as Article 36(2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act was not engaged because the respondent had not applied to set aside the award in China.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's interpretation of schedules to two expired collective agreements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties ratified new collective agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the matter moot as there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, emphasizing that it does not provide advisory opinions and that the applicant had an obligation to bargain scheduling issues rather than await a court decision on expired agreements.