Self-represented

The corporate appellant defaulted on a Canada Small Business Financing Loan and the individual appellant was found liable as guarantor on a summary judgment motion.

On appeal, the appellants argued the action was statute-barred, improperly served, procedurally unfair, and that the bank breached obligations by not disbursing the full loan amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors by the motion judge in concluding the loan was in default, the guarantee was enforceable, and the bank owed no duty of care to disburse the full amount.

The applicant mother sought final parenting and financial orders in an uncontested trial after the respondent father failed to participate or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother primary parenting time, finding it in the children's best interests due to concerns about the father's ability to meet their needs and his refusal to support the mother's relationship with them.

The court imputed the father's income at $124,729, ordered ongoing child support, awarded a lump sum of $25,000 for retroactive spousal support, and ordered an equalization payment of $325,000 based on the estimated value of the matrimonial home.

The father was also ordered to pay $28,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Lemay J. dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the respondents.

The Children's Aid Society sought to withdraw its child protection application after the respondent parents absconded from the jurisdiction with their five-year-old child in breach of a non-removal order.

The Society argued it no longer had jurisdiction and had declined to engage police to enforce the order.

The court dismissed the motion to withdraw, strongly criticizing the Society's failure to act on the police enforcement clause, and ordered the Society to immediately contact police to locate and apprehend the child.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's Complaints Committee not to refer his complaint against a member to the Discipline Committee.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering dismissal of the application.

The court found that the applicant, as a complainant in a professional discipline matter, lacked standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order to permit the children's relocation to California, where she had secured employment, and to impute income to the respondent father for child support purposes.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking the children's return to Ontario, joint decision-making, and a reduction in child support based on his unemployment.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting the mother's enhanced stability and the father's history of family violence, non-compliance with court orders, and intentional underemployment.

The court dismissed the father's motion, authorized the relocation, imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the father, and fixed child support arrears at $85,441.13.

The plaintiff judgment creditor brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment which found that the defendant debtor fraudulently conveyed his interest in a jointly-owned property to his wife.

The wife subsequently sold that property and purchased a new one.

The court ordered the sale of the new property, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of its net proceeds, including any increase in value.

The court declined to grant the wife additional time to obtain financing, balanced carrying costs against occupation rent, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, filed a handwritten claim alleging her child was misdiagnosed, but failed to disclose a cause of action, state any requested relief, or establish a connection to the defendant.

The court found the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit, noting curious formatting and irrelevant attachments.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order to permit the children's relocation to California, where she had secured employment, and to impute income to the respondent father for child support purposes.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking the children's return to Ontario, joint decision-making, and a reduction in child support based on his unemployment.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting the mother's enhanced stability and the father's history of family violence, non-compliance with court orders, and intentional underemployment.

The court dismissed the father's motion, authorized the relocation, imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the father, and fixed child support arrears at $85,441.13.

The self-represented applicant, a former director of the condominium corporation, applied for the appointment of an administrator or inspector, and sought declarations of oppression and breach of the directors' standard of care.

The applicant alleged that a shared facilities agreement with a developer's subsidiary was unfair and that the board mismanaged expenses and reserve fund calculations.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the board was unable to manage the condominium's affairs or that its conduct was oppressive.

The court emphasized that appointing an administrator is a remedy of last resort.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy in supportive housing and subsequent orders dismissing her requests for review.

The tenant argued the LTB erred by not considering her inability to attend the hearings due to incarceration and health issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determinations regarding the tenant's ability to participate were findings of fact, not errors of law, and therefore outside the court's jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the application sought relief the court could not grant and failed to raise proper grounds for judicial review.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, which continued to argue the substantive merits rather than addressing the HRTO's procedural dismissal, the court found the application devoid of merit.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for alleged landlord harassment and interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related entirely to findings of fact, not questions of law, contrary to section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff law firm brought an in-writing motion for default judgment against the defendant for an unpaid invoice.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding the motion record deficient.

The court noted issues with improper service by mail instead of personal service, failure to include the underlying invoice, incorrect pre-judgment interest calculations, and failure to address why costs should not be restricted under Rule 57.05 given the claim fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The parties separated in 2022 and resolved parenting arrangements, leaving financial issues for trial.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent, a self-employed fire sprinkler technician, based on union wages.

The court found the respondent's business records unreliable and determined he was intentionally underemployed.

Applying the Drygala test, the court imputed income to the respondent based on 65% of the union hourly rate, reflecting his historical earnings pattern.

The court ordered ongoing child support and proportional sharing of section 7 expenses, calculated arrears, and dismissed the applicant's claim for spousal support due to lack of available income.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for alleged landlord harassment and interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related entirely to findings of fact, not questions of law, contrary to section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The society brought a protection application regarding four-year-old twins.

The children were removed from the mother's care following her involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and subsequent failure to comply with a temporary supervision order.

The society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and a disposition placing them with their father in Montreal for six months under society supervision.

The mother opposed the application, seeking the return of the children to her care.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's unaddressed mental health issues, substance use, and inability to consistently parent.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be placed with the father in Montreal, subject to society supervision, with supervised access for the mother.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and making and distributing child sexual abuse and exploitation material involving a 14-year-old complainant.

He appealed his convictions and his four-and-a-half-year sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying a stay of proceedings for egregious Crown misconduct, finding no s. 10(b) Charter breach, instructing the jury on prior inconsistent statements, and not leaving the private use exemption defence to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the global sentence was fit and the 18-month reduction for the s. 7 Charter breach was an appropriate remedy.

The applicant, an RCMP officer on leave, sought an oppression remedy under the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act after the respondent's Board of Directors overruled its Nominations and Election Committee and declared him ineligible to stand for election as a director.

The applicant argued the Board acted in bad faith and contrary to past practice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not meet the by-law requirement of being from National Headquarters, as he had not yet been transferred there.

The court held that the Board acted reasonably and within its duty to enforce the by-laws, and the applicant had no reasonable expectation that a candidacy violating the by-laws would be approved.