Sandra Nishikawa

The court released an addendum to its reasons for decision dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review.

In the original decision, no costs were ordered because the panel had not received the parties' agreement on costs.

The parties subsequently advised the court that they had agreed the successful party would be entitled to $140,000 in costs.

The court varied its reasons to award the respondent $140,000 in costs.

The appellant contractor appealed a decision dismissing its construction lien action against the respondent homeowners.

The appellant had performed emergency plumbing and remediation work, billed an excessive amount, left the work unfinished, and used a fake law firm to threaten the homeowners.

The Associate Justice dismissed the lien, contract, and quantum meruit claims because the appellant was not the contracting party, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that allowing the appellant to misuse the legal process in furtherance of a deceptive scheme would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion for a publication ban, anonymization order, and sealing of documents in her application for judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The underlying complaint related to the police investigation of an alleged sexual assault against the applicant while she was working as an exotic dancer.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that court openness posed a serious risk to the applicant's privacy and psychological well-being, and that the benefits of protecting her identity outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, allowing the applicant to proceed using initials.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its Rule 21 motion for delay.

The motion sought to determine that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the respondent's action, which challenged the results of a statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appraisal process is final and binding, subject only to judicial review.

The court held that a lack of jurisdiction cannot be treated as a mere irregularity and that delay in bringing a Rule 21 motion challenging jurisdiction should generally only result in costs consequences, not dismissal of the motion.

The action was stayed for want of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the school board's decisions finding he breached the code of conduct, imposing sanctions, and confirming those decisions.

The breach involved extreme and disrespectful comments made during a debate on adding gender identity and expression to the code of conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board had the authority to reconsider an initial vote that failed to find a breach, and that the subsequent decisions reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter rights with the board's statutory objectives to promote a positive and inclusive school climate.

The self-represented appellant appealed two Small Claims Court decisions arising from an auto repair dispute: a costs order following a successful nonsuit motion by one defendant, and a final order dismissing the action against the remaining defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the costs appeal required leave which was not sought, and that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors.

The court also rejected the appellant's allegations of procedural unfairness and judicial bias, noting the trial judge properly managed the proceeding and the appellant's unreasonable conduct.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion for contempt against the respondent mother for alleged breaches of a final family law order, including terms requiring joint decision-making for the children's medical care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, no material misapprehension of evidence, and no denial of procedural fairness by the motion judge.

The court emphasized that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion in managing the hearing and dismissing the ill-conceived motion.

The appellants requested an adjournment on the day of their appeal hearing, citing a last-minute change in counsel.

The court noted that the hearing had been scheduled for months and that the late request wasted court resources.

However, given the breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and the new counsel's inability to argue the appeal, the court granted a short adjournment.

The new hearing date was made peremptory on the appellants, and they were ordered to pay costs thrown away of $2,500 to each respondent group.

The applicant brought motions for further production of documents and to strike an affidavit in the context of his applications for judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decisions to close his complaints against two lawyers.

The court dismissed the motion for production, finding that the decision to close a complaint is not the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and that internal memoranda are protected by deliberative privilege.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike the affidavit of the Intake and Resolution Counsel, finding it properly detailed the process followed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs fixed at $3,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis and scheduled a case management teleconference to set a schedule.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of Landlord and Tenant Board orders pending the tenant's appeal, citing rental arrears.

The court found that the tenant had paid the majority of the arrears and December rent, leaving only a minimal amount owing.

The court declined to lift the stay but adjourned the motion without prejudice if future rent was not paid.

The court also granted the self-represented tenant a final extension of time to perfect her appeal.

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 statutory accident benefits.

The appellant opposed the motion, while the respondent consented.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT could make a useful and distinct contribution on the statutory and procedural context and procedural fairness.

However, the court restricted the LAT from making submissions on the standard of review or reasonable apprehension of bias to avoid the tribunal defending its own decision.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario requiring them to be cautioned and, in one case, to complete a remediation program.

The applicants argued the decisions were unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address their submissions regarding inordinate delay (over four years) and abuse of process.

One applicant also argued the ICRC failed to consider her mental health disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court granted the applications, quashed the decisions, and remitted the matters back to the ICRC, finding the decisions unreasonable because the ICRC failed to meaningfully grapple with the central issues of delay, abuse of process, and disability.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse for exposing his genitals to a minor, resulting in the revocation of his certificate.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its credibility assessments, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the minor's evidence and the lack of explicit findings on the appellant's credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's reasons, read contextually, adequately explained its rejection of the appellant's denial and correctly applied the law regarding child witness credibility and inconsistencies.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Myers J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party was not required to provide materials, no costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his request for a catastrophic impairment designation, income replacement benefits, and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Vice-Chair erred by failing to include a contingency for future surgery in his whole person impairment rating and by ignoring expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that whole person impairment is assessed based on the claimant's condition at the time of the hearing without contingencies for future deterioration or surgery.

The applicant, a member of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, sought judicial review of the Band Council's decisions to refuse her an allocation of tax-exempt unmarked cigarettes for her smoke shop.

The Council based its refusal on criminal convictions related to an unlicensed cannabis dispensary operating on the same property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Council reasonably interpreted its authority under the Tobacco Tax Act regulations to revoke quotas from retailers involved in the illegal sale of drugs.

Although the Council breached its minimal duty of procedural fairness by not giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to the information, the Court declined to quash the decisions because the outcome would not have been different.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the City of Hamilton's decision to reject an advertisement submitted by the applicants for display on the City's transit system.

The court applied the test for intervention and found that ARCC had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the issues, and would provide a useful and distinct perspective regarding the broader potential impact of the decision.

The motion for leave to intervene was granted subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of ARCC's submissions.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed their request to rely on documents obtained in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario proceeding.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the documents were subject to the implied undertaking rule.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.