Sandra Nishikawa

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The respondent did not oppose the motion.

The court noted that the proper procedure for challenging the tribunal's decisions on a question of law is by way of statutory appeal, and judicial review on questions of mixed fact and law is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

The moving party requested more time to decide how to proceed, and the motion was adjourned to a case conference.

The plaintiffs moved for an order staying or adjourning the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a case management judge's decision on a Rule 21 motion.

The Rule 21 motion was heard together with the first stage of a bifurcated certification motion in a proposed class proceeding arising from a mass shooting.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and granted the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured postponing the leave motion until after the second stage of the certification motion was decided to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed her complaint that her former employer terminated her as a reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board had found she was terminated for cause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board's Vice-Chair.

Applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, the Court held that the Board's decision was logical, well-reasoned, and based on an extensive review of the evidence.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a physician regarding decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The physician sought judicial review of seven public complaint decisions and one Registrar's investigation decision related to her social media posts about the COVID-19 pandemic.

The College argued the application regarding the public complaints was premature because the physician had also sought review before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The court granted the motion to quash the portion of the application relating to the public complaints, finding that the HPARB process provided an adequate alternative remedy and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the administrative process.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee five months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent was terminated without cause after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in considering the respondent's pregnancy as a factor under the Bardal framework when determining the reasonable notice period, nor did the motion judge err in the costs award.

The moving party father sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal a temporary order granting decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support to the respondent mother.

The father served his notice of motion outside the 15-day period required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the father had not formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, offered no explanation for the delay, and his proposed appeal lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, against two sex workers in 1986.

The accused fled to the United States shortly after being charged and was not returned to Canada until 2015.

At trial, the Crown successfully applied to admit similar fact evidence across the counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing his s. 7 rights were breached due to the loss of the original police files and evidence over the 35-year delay.

The court found a s. 7 breach regarding some lost evidence but declined to order a stay, noting the accused's own flight caused the delay.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts, staying one count of unlawful confinement under the Kienapple principle.

The media applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision in a police disciplinary hearing to impose a publication ban on a video exhibit and subsequently allow the exhibit to be withdrawn from the record.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to apply the proper Dagenais-Mentuck test before granting the ban and by allowing the exhibit to be withdrawn when the media sought to challenge it.

The Court set aside the publication ban and the withdrawal order, directing that the video be made public with the victim's name redacted.

The Court also ordered the police service to provide contemporaneous access to exhibits during future hearings in accordance with the open court principle.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding her application for Income Replacement Benefits was statute-barred.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the insurer's denial letter was valid and by refusing to extend the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the appellant's challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise extricable questions of law.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $2,321.02 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs outlines, no costs were ordered.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Diamond dated June 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the agreed amount of $6,352.86 to the responding party.

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.

The parties failed to comply with a case management direction requiring them to upload an agreement on costs or costs outlines prior to the hearing.

The responding party requested to submit an offer to settle prior to the costs award.

The court declined to permit further materials on costs, emphasizing that parties cannot disregard case management directions and that it is inefficient for leave panels to reconstitute to consider costs.

The court fixed costs of the motion at $2,500 payable by the moving party to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Somji J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay agreed costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to arrange an appeal schedule.

The applicant commenced an application that was abandoned after early case management teleconferences.

The respondent sought approximately $8,000 in costs for the abandoned application.

The Divisional Court noted that its practice is not to award costs for case management attendances unless there is litigation misconduct, and the case management judge had not awarded costs.

Finding the respondent's costs claim unreasonable and excessive for the minor steps taken, the court declined to award any costs for the abandoned application or the costs motion.

The appellants appealed two orders made by a case management judge authorizing the sale of an estate property and setting the terms of the sale.

The respondent Estate Trustee During Litigation brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the orders were interlocutory and leave to appeal had not been obtained.

The Divisional Court held that the orders were interlocutory because they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties to the net proceeds of the sale.

The court further held that leave to appeal is required for interlocutory orders under s. 10(1) of the Estates Act.

As the appellants did not seek leave, the appeal was quashed.

The court also noted that the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits in any event.

The accused was found lying in a backyard suffering from a gunshot wound following a gunfight in a residential neighbourhood.

A loaded prohibited firearm was found nearby.

The Crown's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused possessed and discharged the firearm.

The court found significant gaps in the evidence, including unreliable police testimony regarding the exact location of the firearm and the presence of multiple other individuals involved in the shootout.

The court concluded there were reasonable inferences other than guilt, such as the firearm being left by another participant, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault following an altercation where he stabbed the complainant in the neck and back.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant pulled out a firearm and shot at him.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both the accused's and the complainant's testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill or rob the complainant, and failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of all three charges.

The applicant, a francophone physician, sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had denied his request for a disciplinary hearing before a bilingual panel, concluding that the use of interpreters was sufficient and constituted a reasonable limit under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the standard of correctness applied to the interpretation of language rights.

The Court found that the applicant has a presumptive right to a bilingual panel under section 86(1) of the Code.

The Court further held that the Committee's conclusion that interpreters were a reasonable limit under section 86(4) was unreasonable because it failed to consider the specific circumstances of the case.

The matter of reasonable limits was remitted to the Committee.