Sharon Shore

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal over ten years ago.

After a decade of inaction, the appellant brought a motion under section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the proper court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and the appeal, finding that the underlying appeal regarding the respondent's compliance with an arbitration award had no reasonable chance of success.

Furthermore, the court found that transferring the matter after such an extreme and unexplained delay would cause undue prejudice to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated June 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved the costs of the motion to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order directing the Children's Aid Society to conduct an assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting that while the parties agreed the order was a mistake, such an error should be corrected on a motion in the court below under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs endorsement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their rental of a parking space for their motor home due to the seasonal exemption in s. 5(a).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application of the exemption was a question of mixed fact and law, which is outside the court's jurisdiction under s. 210.

The court also dismissed the tenants' motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected their claims of procedural fairness and bias against the Board member.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order requiring the disclosure of a joint venture agreement and payment records to a requester under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 17(1) as trade secrets and that the IPC breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's process was fair and its conclusion that the agreement was mutually negotiated rather than 'supplied in confidence' was reasonable.

The court also declined to consider a new argument under s. 17(2) that was not raised before the adjudicator.

The appellant physician appealed a disciplinary tribunal's decision revoking his licence to practise medicine for professional misconduct and incompetence.

The misconduct findings were based on the appellant spreading COVID-19 misinformation, issuing improper vaccine exemptions, and failing to cooperate with the regulator's investigation.

The appellant argued that the tribunal's decision unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal's Doré proportionality analysis and finding that the revocation of the appellant's licence was a proportionate response to protect the public interest and maintain the integrity of the medical profession.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to purchase the respondent's minority shares in a corporation.

The motion judge made the order to advance the litigation, finding that both parties ultimately wanted a share buyout.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the issue of a compelled share purchase was not formally before the motion judge, and that a finding of oppression was required first.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had notice of the argument, suffered no prejudice, and that the court had broad discretion under the Business Corporations Act to order a share purchase without a finding of oppression.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no submissions regarding costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 4, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As both parties were self-represented and no costs submissions were filed, no costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision holding him to a 2004 settlement of his motor vehicle accident claims.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid because he initialed, rather than signed, the Statutory Disclosure Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's failure to sign the specific signature line was a technical and immaterial defect that did not invalidate the notice or allow him to rescind the agreement.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Akazaki J. dated August 12, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision to sanction her for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The sanctions arose from the applicant's conduct and statements, including social media posts, criticizing the board and fellow trustees.

The applicant argued the decision infringed her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that she was denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, proportionately balanced the applicant's expressive rights with the statutory objectives of the Education Act, and afforded her adequate procedural fairness.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario's (FSRA) decision to investigate them, issue a summons, and issue a Notice of Proposal regarding alleged contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for being premature, as there were ongoing proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the administrative process must run its course and that the statutory scheme provided an adequate alternative remedy through a de novo hearing before the tribunal.

The applicant, TTC Insurance Company Limited (TTCICL), sought an order extending the time to commence their appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and an order joining this appeal with an existing application for judicial review.

Concurrently, the LAT and the Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to intervene in the appeal.

The court granted both motions, finding that the extension of time was justified given the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar, the short delay, lack of prejudice to the respondent, and the overall interests of justice.

Intervenor status was granted to LAT and the Attorney General, with LAT's submissions restricted to procedural and jurisdictional issues, not the merits of its decision.

The moving party sought leave to bring an application for judicial review to set aside part of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave.

The court ordered no costs due to the absence of a Costs Outline, directed that deposited monies be paid out to the responding party, and lifted the stay against the enforcement of the determination.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision granting a Writ of Possession and a stay of the Writ pending appeal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to grant the Writ rather than deferring to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court also granted a stay of the Writ pending appeal, on the condition that the moving party pay $2,000 per month as an occupancy payment and permit access to prospective purchasers.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision of Wilkinson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed in the amount of $5,000.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned investment property.

The Applicant opposed the sale, arguing it was malicious, vexatious, and oppressive, and that she wished to retain the property as an income source given the Respondent's early retirement.

The court found that a joint tenant has a prima facie right to partition or sale under the Partition Act, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reason to deny the sale, as it was an inevitable outcome at trial and not a matrimonial home.

The motion for sale was granted, with the Applicant's share of net proceeds to be released and the Respondent's share held in trust.

The court also addressed costs and expressed concerns about the ongoing litigation and resource imbalance between the parties.