Sandra Nishikawa

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for delay under Rule 48.14(7)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They argued the Associate Justice erred by failing to consider contextual factors and made palpable and overriding errors regarding their lack of steps taken and the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact, noting the appellants failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay or demonstrate that the respondents would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for rent arrears, which they had subsequently voided by paying the required amount.

The tenants argued the Board erred in calculating the arrears and failing to account for previous costs awards owed by the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenants' arguments raised factual issues rather than questions of law, which are required for an appeal under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider evidence of reprisal and prior notices.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal merely challenged the Board's factual findings and assessment of evidence, which do not constitute extricable questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving parties, Eliezer Karp and DJD Law Professional Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of A.P. Ramsay J. dated November 21, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded costs outlines or bills of costs, no costs were ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that granted the respondent's second motion to set aside a 2006 default judgment.

The respondent's first motion to set aside the judgment had been dismissed in 2017, a decision upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised in the second motion was res judicata.

The deputy judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second motion, which amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a final decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 26, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party, Juan Guillermo Gutierrez, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of McEwen J. dated December 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, the Receiver, fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order and a motion to strike or file further evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $10,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 18, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 17, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the responding party failed to file a Costs Outline.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body that denied its applications for severance and minor variances to build two single-family homes.

The moving party argued the member applied the wrong statutory test and misapprehended expert evidence regarding street and lot frontages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member applied the correct legal test, the evidentiary issue did not raise an extricable question of law, and the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant granting leave.

The moving party sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a secondary plan and zoning bylaw, alleging breaches of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds did not raise questions of law of general or public importance.

The court noted that the Tribunal's procedural decisions, including limiting cross-examination and quashing summonses, fell within its statutory discretion to control its own process and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the applicant employer's application for judicial review for delay.

The employer had failed to perfect its application within the court-ordered timetable or the 30-day period under the Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in a delay of at least 11 months.

The court found the delay excessive, the employer's explanation unreasonable, and noted prejudice to the union due to the prolonged uncertainty and the employer's attempt to substantively amend its application.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under the Insurance Act following a fire at his property.

The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction, denied procedural fairness, and had a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the umpire had jurisdiction to set the appraisal process and that the applicant had effectively withdrawn from the process by failing to file an appraisal brief or attend the hearing.

The court also held that the applicant's conflict of interest objection was untimely and deemed waived.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's rulings on interest and costs in an accident benefits dispute.

The applicant argued that interest on retroactive attendant care benefits should be calculated from an earlier date, and challenged the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the interest issue was squarely governed by the court's prior decision in Grigoroff, which held that interest runs from the date the retroactive claim form is filed.

The court also found the costs award was highly discretionary and the Delegate's decision to uphold it was reasonable.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for a sealing order and the continuation of a non-publication order regarding exhibits containing personal health information of patients in an appeal from the discipline tribunal.

The self-represented appellant opposed the motion, arguing that redactions would suffice.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of protecting patient confidentiality.

The court granted the motion, concluding that the proposed order was necessary and its benefits outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against two physicians.

The complaints arose after the physicians reported the applicant to the Ministry of Transportation for a potential visual impairment, resulting in a temporary suspension of his driver's licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the HPARB's decisions were reasonable and that the physicians had complied with their mandatory reporting obligations under the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant commenced the application 10 months after the final reconsideration decision, arguing that the COVID-19 suspension of limitation periods under O. Reg 73/20 applied.

The court found that even if the suspension did not apply, the four-month delay beyond the common law six-month timeline was not inordinate.

The court held that the delay was reasonably explained by the pandemic context and caused no actual prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The tenants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a case management judge's order requiring them to pay ongoing rent and a portion of substantial arrears to maintain a stay of eviction pending their appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the respondent was not the true landlord and objected to the case management process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the case management judge's discretionary order, and affirmed the court's practice of managing LTB appeals efficiently.