Sharon Shore

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his application for Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) as statute-barred.

The LAT found that the insurer's May 3, 2021 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error in its application of the limitation period or its refusal to extend the time to appeal.

The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding discoverability and the impact of subsequent correspondence from the insurer.

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding them financial compensation rather than a 45 percent ownership interest in the respondent corporation under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to give effect to their reasonable expectation that shares would be issued pursuant to a non-binding term sheet.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly considered the appellants' reasonable expectations, correctly concluded the term sheet was not a binding agreement to issue shares, and appropriately exercised his broad remedial discretion in awarding financial compensation instead of shares.

The self-represented appellant appealed an associate judge's interlocutory order that restored his motor vehicle accident action to the trial list and dismissed his motion for disclosure of a defence interpreter's emergency contact information.

The court reconstituted itself as a sitting of the Superior Court of Justice to cure a jurisdictional defect.

The court found no error in the motion judge's refusal to order disclosure from a non-party or in the decision to restore the administratively dismissed action to the trial list.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a near substantial indemnity basis due to the appellant's unfounded allegations of fraud and perjury against the motion judge and opposing counsel.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied their request for an extension of time to review a consent eviction order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice that the appeal may be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the notice of appeal failed to identify any questions of law, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants did not file responding submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

Both the moving parties and the responding parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the issue was moot in the context of the case.

The responding parties' motion for leave to appeal was granted, with costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report and the subsequent municipal council decision suspending her salary for 90 days.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached sections 10 and 15 of the Code of Conduct through social media posts following a defeated motion regarding flag-raising.

The Divisional Court held that while the finding of a breach of section 15 (discreditable conduct) was reasonable, the interpretation of section 10 (improper use of influence) to prohibit continued advocacy after a council decision or advocacy on matters outside council's purview was unreasonable.

The report and council decision were quashed and remitted for reconsideration of the penalty.

The moving party brought two motions for leave to appeal in a family law dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the order of Bezaire J. dated May 2, 2025, with no costs awarded.

The court granted the motion for leave to appeal the order of Hebner J. dated May 13, 2025, specifically regarding the suspension of the moving party's parenting time, with costs left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay the orders of the motion judge, which had authorized the release of funds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay pending appeal, noting that the underlying orders were made under the mistaken belief that the moving parties and the responding bank had been served with the motion in writing.

No further payments are to be made pending the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and a related costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the City of Vaughan and $5,000 to the other responding parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim for being filed one day beyond the one-year limitation period.

The HRTO had refused to extend the time limit, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, noting the applicant had filed a timely complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and moved with reasonable dispatch to file with the HRTO after the federal commission declined jurisdiction.

The HRTO's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for a determination on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) to screen out his police conduct complaint.

The applicant also moved to set aside a motion judge's decision refusing to add certain internal LECA documents to the record of proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding the scope of the record.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, concluding that the screening decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Complaints Director reasonably exercised his discretion to consolidate the applicant's complaint with an ongoing statutory review of a related prior complaint.

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The appellant estate trustee appealed a decision directing payment to the respondent for expenses paid on behalf of the deceased's estate.

The appellant argued the claim was barred by s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 38(3) applies to wrongs committed by the deceased, not ordinary estate debts.

The Court also held that the limitation period for reimbursement did not begin to run until the respondent made a claim to the appointed trustee and the trustee refused to pay.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The appellant, a Registered Practical Nurse, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding she committed professional misconduct by submitting false insurance claims to her employer's benefits plan.

The Committee had ordered a six-month suspension and other penalties.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court dismissed as the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing and constituted a collateral attack.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual and credibility findings, and held the penalty was not clearly unfit.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay under Rule 61.13(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants had failed to perfect their appeal of an order staying their action on the basis of forum non conveniens for over two years past the deadline.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, did not rebut the presumption of prejudice, and advanced an appeal lacking merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her claims for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, catastrophic impairment designation, and attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT's decisions regarding the 104-week deadline for income replacement benefits, the assessment of catastrophic impairment criteria, and the reduction of attendant care benefits were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness violations, concluding that the LAT appropriately controlled its own process.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $2,500 payable to the responding parties.