Shaun O'Brien

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her motion to set aside an eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the Board erred in finding she had not paid the required amount to void the order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board afforded procedural fairness and made no errors of law, as the amount paid was a question of fact and the tenant repeatedly confirmed the amount during the hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacEachern J. dated June 23, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) investigated a cheating scandal involving the November 2021 licensing exams.

Based on statistical anomalies, the LSO voided the applicants' exam results and their registration in the licensing process without holding a hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that while voiding the compromised exams was a reasonable administrative measure, voiding the applicants' registration and imposing regulatory sanctions without a hearing breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the punitive sanctions and remitted the matters to the LSO.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding her complaints of misconduct against five police officers.

The complaints stemmed from the officers' handling of her allegations of sexual assault and assault.

The OIPRD had referred the investigation back to the same police service, which found two officers committed 'less serious' misconduct and unsubstantiated the rest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decisions to refer the investigation, uphold the findings on charges, and classify the misconduct as less serious were all reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness or equality rights.

The moving party, a neighbourhood association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a development application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without providing reasons, consistent with its usual practice.

On the issue of costs, the court rejected the moving party's argument that it was a public interest litigant, noting it was directly impacted by the development.

However, recognizing the association's lack of assets, the court reduced the requested costs of $32,272.16 and ordered the moving party to pay $10,000 to the responding developers.

The court also directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1 regarding the related application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an oppression application involving two closely held companies, one incorporated under the OBCA and the other under the CBCA.

The Divisional Court noted a jurisdictional issue, as appeals under the CBCA lie to the Court of Appeal, while OBCA appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

To avoid divided jurisdiction, the Divisional Court transferred the CBCA appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act and adjourned the OBCA appeal to allow the appellant to seek a transfer of that matter to the Court of Appeal under s. 6 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent landlord brought a motion in writing to dismiss the tenant's appeal due to delay and failure to comply with court directions.

The tenant had previously failed to attend case conferences and missed multiple deadlines to file her appeal materials, despite being given extensions by the court.

The court found that the tenant had been given sufficient opportunity to pursue her appeal but failed to do so.

Applying Rules 3.04(4) and 61.13(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant father appealed a family law trial decision that granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority to the respondent mother.

The father argued he was denied natural justice because the trial judge refused further adjournments for health reasons and to retain counsel, and proceeded with the assistance of amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge went to great lengths to accommodate the father and ensure a fair trial.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the trial judge's findings on the child's best interests and imputed income.

The mother appealed a motion judge's decision to send the issue of the children's COVID-19 vaccination to trial rather than deciding it on a long motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by refusing to take judicial notice of Health Canada's regulatory approval of the vaccine, relying on inadmissible evidence, and failing to place the onus on the father to demonstrate why the children should not be vaccinated.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority over the children's COVID-19 vaccinations on a final basis.

The applicant sought judicial review of interim decisions made by the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society Tribunal regarding scheduling and a recusal request in an ongoing disciplinary proceeding.

The court dismissed the applications summarily under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the applications were patently premature, as the administrative proceedings had not yet concluded and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying fragmentation of the process.

The appellant defaulted on a $15,000 business loan guaranteed by the Province of Ontario under an economic development program.

Ontario repaid the bank and later successfully sued the appellant in Small Claims Court for indemnification.

On appeal, the appellant argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period and the doctrine of laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Ontario sued as a guarantor exempt from limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that laches did not apply because Ontario had actively pursued collection.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 4, 2023.

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 an unreported order of McGee J. dated May 25, 2023.

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 plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court also amended previous orders to state that the order will cease to have effect if the defendant pays the Canadian dollar equivalent of €3,266,122.45 into court as security.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Valente J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Varpio J. dated April 11, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and awarded the moving party $2,000 in costs.

The tenants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for rent arrears.

The Board had found the landlord was exempt from rent increase guidelines, resulting in a substantial rent increase the tenants could not afford.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that while the tenants had an intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay due to medical issues, the proposed appeal lacked merit and the ongoing accumulation of arrears caused significant prejudice to the landlord.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.