Sandra Nishikawa

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a college.

The tribunal had dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish a connection between her removal from an academic program and any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the tribunal's decision exhibited the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated April 14, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Van Melle J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 28, 2023.

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

The appellant appealed a final order of the Law Society Appeal Division Panel upholding decisions that found he failed to cooperate with a Law Society investigation and imposed a six-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no factual or legal errors in the Appeal Panel's decision.

The court agreed that the Law Society had a reasonable suspicion to investigate, the appellant was afforded a fair hearing, and the penalty and costs awards were appropriate.

The applicant, a municipal contractor, sought judicial review of a decision by the City's Fair Wage Office finding that it violated the Fair Wage Policy by failing to pay a worker the minimum hourly rate for a 'welder'.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable because the worker performed unskilled 'stud welding' rather than skilled journeyman welding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicant was given fair notice and multiple opportunities to respond.

The court also held the decision was reasonable, as the applicable Sewer and Watermain schedule did not distinguish between certified and uncertified welders, and the worker spent 90% of his time performing a form of welding.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting benefits to a worker who sustained paraplegia in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company truck.

The worker was driving home from work with coworkers and was found to be impaired by alcohol.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the worker was in the course of employment and that, despite his serious and wilful misconduct in driving impaired, he was entitled to benefits under s. 17 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because his injuries resulted in a serious impairment.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The applicant, a French-language health planning entity, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's refusal to recommend it for designation as a 'public service agency' under the French Language Services Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Minister's refusal to recommend was subject to judicial review, the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Minister's decision reasonable, as the applicant's mandate involved providing advice and planning services to government agencies rather than direct services to the public.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief of Police dismissing her complaint against certain police officers as unsubstantiated, based on an investigative report.

Before the independent review of the decision could be completed, the subject officers resigned, causing the review to be halted pursuant to section 90 of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the complaint process is held in abeyance for five years and could resume if the officers are re-employed.

The court also held that statutory secrecy provisions prevent the investigative report from being used against the applicant in other civil proceedings.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the respondent landlord to convert the unit to a non-residential use.

The appellants argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment, finding the landlord required possession, and refusing discretionary relief from eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of fact or discretionary decisions, not extricable questions of law as required for a statutory appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal and for a stay of two previous orders.

Prior to the hearing, the moving party filed a Notice of Abandonment of Appeal.

Consequently, the Divisional Court dismissed the motions as abandoned.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding a builder's licence renewal.

The LAT sought to make limited submissions on the statutory context, standard of review, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation, without addressing the merits of the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed intervention would provide a useful perspective without compromising impartiality or causing undue delay, and imposed conditions on its participation.

The appellants appealed an order striking their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for failing to comply with a costs order.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness and that the Associate Judge erred by not considering the merits of their claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellants were given multiple opportunities to pay the costs or provide evidence of impecuniosity.

The court also held that the rules permitting the striking of pleadings for non-compliance do not require a consideration of the underlying merits of the case.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal both orders.

No costs were awarded as the moving party did not seek them.

The moving party brought an urgent motion for a stay pending appeal, which was adjourned and ultimately became moot when her motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The responding estate trustees and the Children's Lawyer sought their costs of the stay motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties were required to oppose the stay motion due to the broad relief initially sought and the urgency claimed by the moving party.

Applying the principles from Sawdon Estate, the court made a blended costs order, fixing the responding parties' full indemnity costs and directing the moving party to pay a partial indemnity portion, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision finding her three children in need of protection and placing them in extended Society care.

The trial judge also reduced the mother's access from weekly to bi-monthly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the protection finding and disposition, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risks and the mother's plan.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to give full effect to section 17 of the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, which requires promoting ties to family for Indigenous children.

The access issue was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the renewal of a vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Attorney General sought to make submissions on the proper interpretation of the 'integrity and honesty' provision, arguing it would impact similar provisions in numerous other statutes.

The court found that the Attorney General met the test for intervention, noting the public interest and the Attorney General's unique position to assist the court on broader statutory implications.

The motion was granted on consent, subject to conditions.