Sharon Shore

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of execution of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had failed to pay ongoing rent and arrears as directed at a case management conference.

The court found that the tenant's failure to keep rent current and comply with the payment conditions warranted lifting the stay.

The motion was granted and the stay was lifted immediately.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the Crown could not be compelled to answer questions on an examination for discovery in an action brought under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming binding Court of Appeal precedent that the Crown's privilege to refuse discovery can only be taken away by express statutory words.

The court also rejected the argument that the Crown had attorned to the court's jurisdiction for discovery purposes by defending the action and voluntarily participating in some discovery.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion requesting that the triage judge recuse herself from his application for judicial review due to potential bias.

The applicant argued that the judge was formerly a partner at a law firm that had represented an employee of the respondent insurer in a divorce proceeding over six years prior.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable person would not apprehend bias given the passage of time, the judge's lack of personal involvement with the individual, and the individual's peripheral role in the current proceedings.

The appellant appealed multiple decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying her Income Replacement Benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as decisions denying an extension of time and a reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory extension and reconsideration decisions.

Regarding the merits, the court held that the LAT's procedural choice to proceed in writing was fair and that the appellant's substantive arguments raised questions of fact, not extricable errors of law.

The landlords brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of execution of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The court had previously directed the tenant to pay ongoing rent and make monthly payments towards rental arrears as a condition of maintaining the stay.

The tenant failed to make any payments towards the arrears, arguing that conflicting orders prevented them from doing so.

The court rejected this argument, finding no contradiction, and held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living in the unit without paying the outstanding rent.

The motion was granted and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for rent arrears exceeding $67,000.

The court previously ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and make partial payments towards the arrears as a condition of maintaining the statutory stay of eviction pending appeal.

The tenant failed to make any payments and failed to perfect his appeal.

The court lifted the stay of eviction, finding the balance of convenience heavily favoured the landlord, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant hospital brought a motion for a sealing order to redact details of its cybersecurity infrastructure from the record of proceedings in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerned an investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario into a ransomware attack on the hospital.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the sealing order, finding that publication of the information would increase the hospital's vulnerability to future attacks.

The court also awarded costs against the respondent tribunal for improperly opposing the motion and filing a letter in lieu of a factum.

The applicant First Nations sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to amend a Crown Land Use Policy Atlas and transfer a parcel of Crown land to the Municipality of Red Lake for housing development.

The applicants argued the Ministry breached its duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and failed to obtain their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Treaty No. 3 allows the Crown to take up land subject to a duty to consult, which does not amount to a First Nation veto.

The court held that the duty to consult was at the lower end of the spectrum and that the Ministry's consultation process was reasonable and fulfilled its constitutional obligations.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding her dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from her failure to attend internal investigations and her use of a personal Twitter account to make inappropriate comments about the Chief of Police and others.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and accommodation for her post-traumatic stress disorder, and that her dismissal infringed her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing officer reasonably accommodated her and properly proceeded in her absence.

The Court also upheld the Commission's finding that sections 7 and 15 of the Charter were not engaged, and that her dismissal was a proportionate limit on her freedom of expression under section 2(b).

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion on consent to extend a publication ban ordered by its Discipline Committee.

The ban protected the identity of a special needs student who was a minor at the time of the events but over 18 at the time of the hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the mandatory nature of protecting minor witnesses and the rationale for extending such protection to vulnerable persons.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision declaring her a vexatious litigant after she filed over 160 applications.

The applicant argued the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and the decision was unreasonable, seeking to adduce a surreptitious recording of the hearing as new evidence.

The Divisional Court admitted the recording but dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO provided a fair hearing and reasonably concluded the applicant's conduct was vexatious.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,620 all inclusive.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for persistently paying rent late.

The tenant argued the Board failed to consider his reasons for late payment, discriminated against him, and denied him procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's arguments primarily raised questions of fact, which are not appealable under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded $2,500 in costs to the landlord.

The applicant, an Ontario resident seeking to qualify as a lawyer in Manitoba, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education (CPLED) dismissing his appeal after he failed the bar admission course.

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to judicially review a decision made under the legislation of another province by an extra-provincial body.

Applying the real and substantial connection test, the court found that the applicant's mere residence in Ontario was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and dismissed the application.

The appellants, a corporate landlord and its principals, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order awarding the respondent tenants compensation for a bad faith eviction.

The appellants argued the LTB erred in finding they acted in bad faith when serving an N12 notice of termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 48(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act, an N12 notice is only available to individual landlords, not corporations.

The court found no error of law in the LTB's application of the statute or its findings of fact regarding the failure to occupy the unit.

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 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 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.