Sandra Nishikawa

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a nine-month suspension for a lawyer convicted of possessing child pornography.

The appellant argued the original hearing panel lacked jurisdiction because it did not include a lay adjudicator, contrary to O. Reg. 167/07.

The Divisional Court majority agreed, finding the panel was improperly constituted and lacked jurisdiction, as there was no evidence the Chair exercised discretion to depart from the mandatory requirement.

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

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his contempt motion against the respondent mother for failing to comply with court-ordered access.

The motion judge had found the mother's non-compliance was not intentional, as she could not afford travel due to the father's failure to pay ordered costs, and that Quebec, where the child had lived for over three years, was the proper jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for contempt or her determination that Ontario was no longer the appropriate jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the application, finding that the applicant ought to have pursued a statutory appeal under s. 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, which limits appeals to questions of law.

The court held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism and declined to convert the application into an appeal.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant seeking an extension of time to pursue a statutory appeal.

The deceased died intestate, leaving a common-law spouse of over twenty years and an adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The spouse brought an application for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act, which was granted by the application judge who awarded the entirety of the estate to the spouse.

The daughter's estate appealed, arguing the application judge erred in his treatment of the daughter's residual legal entitlement, the moral duty owed to the grandchildren, and the paramountcy of the spouse's claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge made no errors in principle, properly balanced the competing claims, and reasonably exercised his discretion in prioritizing the spouse's needs given the shortfall in the estate.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a Capital Markets Tribunal decision on the basis of prematurity.

The Tribunal had previously ruled that the Wagg process did not apply to documents the OSC obtained through its own investigation and intended to use in a merits hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary ruling was an interlocutory decision, not a final decision, and therefore no appeal was permitted under s. 10(1) of the Securities Act.

The appellant employee appealed an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

He argued the arbitration clause was invalid because the employment agreement contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a decision to stay a proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of a property.

The Board had reduced the assessment value of the property to represent equitable assessment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the test for leave was met and that the appeal involved an important question of law regarding the proper interpretation of s. 44(3)(b).

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal asserting jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a water and sewage servicing agreement with the respondent municipality.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the agreement's termination clause by failing to apply a pragmatic and common-sense approach and by considering subsequent conduct without finding ambiguity.

Because the agreement had validly terminated, the statutory basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Municipal Act was removed.

The appeal was granted and the Tribunal's order was quashed.

The applicants, acting through litigation guardians, sought judicial review of decisions regarding secondary school programs offered by the Toronto District School Board.

At a previous case conference, the litigation guardians were directed to retain counsel as required by Rule 7.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to amend their deficient notice of application.

At a subsequent case conference, the applicants sought a continued stay pending the outcome of a similar case, while the respondent sought dismissal for non-compliance.

Finding that the litigation guardians had failed to retain full counsel and that the notice of application remained deficient, the court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty physical altercation with his estranged wife.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the OCPC reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer properly admitted hearsay evidence, correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct, and imposed a penalty within the appropriate range.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario (BAO) directing them to return administrative fees collected from charitable donations.

The BAO conceded it lacked jurisdiction to order refunds and requested the matter be remitted to a newly appointed registrar.

The applicants argued the BAO's conduct, including media statements, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and asked the court to decide the matter.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions and remitted the matter in its entirety to the new registrar for reconsideration, finding that the new decision-maker and the BAO's concessions warranted a fresh hearing on a complete record.

The appellant corporation, represented by a non-lawyer, sought to appeal a costs order and a merits order dismissing its claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the appellant failed to seek leave to appeal the costs order and the merits order exceeded the court's monetary jurisdiction.

The appellant declined to provide substantive submissions in response to the notice.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant consistently disregarded the applicable rules.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of King J. dated February 1, 2023.

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

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits.

The LAT adjudicator had found the appellant credible but concluded there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove his injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and holding that the adjudicator's findings of fact were amply supported by the record.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the self-represented respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated January 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daurio J. dated January 30, 2023.

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

The moving parties, operators of a dog-sledding business, sought to set aside a single judge's decision refusing to extend a stay of an Animal Care Review Board costs order regarding the care of their removed dogs.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's balance of convenience analysis, which heavily weighed the mounting public costs of caring for the dogs.

The panel also rejected a request to disqualify one of its members based on prior involvement in a related judicial review, and admitted but gave no weight to fresh evidence of a new statutory application for the dogs' return.

The applicant brought a motion for the production of notes made by an adjudicator who resigned from the discipline committee panel before a decision was rendered.

The applicant sought the notes to support a motion to set aside the underlying decision based on fresh evidence, alleging bias and a breach of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no procedural basis to order production under Rule 30.06 in a statutory appeal.

Furthermore, the court held that the notes were protected by deliberative secrecy, and the applicant's speculative allegations did not meet the threshold to lift the privilege.