Sandra Nishikawa

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

The responding parties requested costs but failed to provide a Costs Outline as required, resulting in no costs being awarded.

The appellant dentist appealed a discipline committee decision finding he engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and committed professional misconduct by co-signing a mortgage with another patient.

The committee revoked his certificate of registration and ordered him to pay costs and therapy expenses.

On appeal, the appellant argued the patient was his spouse under the statutory exception, relying on an alleged foreign divorce and religious marriage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the committee's finding that the sexual relationship commenced before the alleged marriage, rendering the spousal exception inapplicable.

The mandatory penalty of revocation and the costs awards were also upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Ministries disqualifying its bid for a government debt collection contract.

The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation stage for failing to demonstrate it was currently registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procurement dispute was commercial in nature and not subject to judicial review.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Ministries' decision to disqualify the bid based on an expired registration certificate was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of 'full net pay' for disabled firefighters under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer could deduct notional OMERS pension plan contributions from the calculation of full net pay, even when the employee had a disability waiver in place, to ensure continuity of take-home pay rather than providing a windfall.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was justified and unassailable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding her complaints of misconduct against five police officers.

The complaints stemmed from the officers' handling of her allegations of sexual assault and assault.

The OIPRD had referred the investigation back to the same police service, which found two officers committed 'less serious' misconduct and unsubstantiated the rest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decisions to refer the investigation, uphold the findings on charges, and classify the misconduct as less serious were all reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness or equality rights.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering her to pay unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate apparent grounds for relief because she failed to pursue an adequate alternative remedy before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and she failed to show that the delay would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent employee.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Mirza J. dated June 2, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence for failing to pay a $100,000 costs order and for a history of non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge did not reverse the onus, properly considered the lack of evidence regarding the merits of the defence, and correctly identified a pattern of non-compliance rather than making a formal finding of contempt.

The court also rejected the appellant's new argument regarding family law support orders taking precedence, as it was not raised below.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) review decision that ordered his eviction as an unauthorized occupant.

The Divisional Court found that the LTB member breached the duty of procedural fairness by conducting a de novo hearing without first determining the threshold issue of whether the initial decision contained a serious error.

The court also held that the member unfairly denied the appellant the right to cross-examine the landlord regarding alleged renovation contracts, which was a central issue in the member's reasoning.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the LTB for a new review hearing.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

The moving party tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a termination order for failure to comply with a payment schedule for rental arrears.

At the hearing, the court offered the parties an opportunity to resolve the matter given the tenant's significant efforts to pay and the landlord's responsiveness.

The parties reached a resolution where the tenant agreed to pay the outstanding arrears of $6,604.24 by December 31, 2023, along with $2,500 in costs.

The motion for an extension of time was adjourned pending completion of the agreed terms.

The moving party sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision pending her application for judicial review.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from her home and a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the issue moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute due to non-payment of the statement of account.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to file an affidavit demonstrating irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant appealed an interim order that dismissed her motion for spousal support and section 7 expenses for prematurity.

The To Be Spoken To (TBST) judge had previously directed the parties to attend an urgent case conference on these issues.

However, the case conference judge mistakenly treated the attendance as a motion and dismissed it for lack of urgency under the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding that the case conference judge erred by failing to follow the TBST judge's direction and by hearing a substantive motion at a case conference without the parties' consent.

The order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to schedule her motion.

The Regional Municipality of York brought an application for judicial review seeking mandamus after the Minister failed for several years to make a decision on its environmental assessment for a wastewater project.

After the application was commenced, the Ontario legislature passed legislation that effectively repealed the requirement for a decision and mandated a different wastewater solution, rendering the application moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot constitutional and administrative law issues.

However, due to the government's 'reprehensible' delay and 'egregious' conduct in covertly passing legislation to bypass the environmental assessment process, the court relieved the applicant from a prior agreement to waive costs and awarded the applicant its costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Ministry decision affirming the acceptance of a competitor's aggregate permit application as complete.

The applicant argued the Ministry unreasonably justified its acceptance of the competitor's application and failed to concurrently reconsider the applicant's own application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry provided a reasoned explanation for departing from its policies regarding site visits and archaeological checklists, and that concurrent reconsideration was not required to meet the reasonableness standard.

The appellant father appealed a family law trial decision that granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority to the respondent mother.

The father argued he was denied natural justice because the trial judge refused further adjournments for health reasons and to retain counsel, and proceeded with the assistance of amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge went to great lengths to accommodate the father and ensure a fair trial.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the trial judge's findings on the child's best interests and imputed income.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his oppression application, where the application judge found he was not a beneficial shareholder of the respondent corporations.

The application judge had concluded that an earlier agreement granting the appellant a 9% interest was mutually rescinded when a portion of the corporate group was sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it procedurally unfair to decide the case on the unpleaded and unargued theory of mutual rescission.

Furthermore, the court found no factual or legal basis for mutual rescission, concluding the appellant remained a 9% beneficial shareholder entitled to his share of the sale proceeds.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society of Ontario to take no further action on her complaint against a lawyer who acted as counsel to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering whether to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no statutory right of appeal from the Law Society's decision and that the subject matter had been repeatedly addressed by the courts in previous proceedings.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision finding he breached a settlement agreement regarding excessive noise.

On appeal, the appellant argued the CAT provided inadequate reasons for dismissing his defence that the condominium corporation harassed him, and erred in awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CAT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the harassment claims under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, and that the discretionary costs award revealed no error in principle.