Shaun O'Brien

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated March 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the aggregate amount of $20,000.

The moving party, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought two motions for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court regarding summary judgment and certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded agreed aggregate costs of $25,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim order by the Animal Care Review Board regarding the removal of 41 cats from her home.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the application was moot because the Board had already decided not to dismiss the applicant's appeals and had scheduled further hearings to address her constitutional issues.

The court also found the application premature, as it challenged an interim order before the administrative proceedings were completed.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent tenant's lease was residential, not commercial.

The landlord had locked the tenant out for non-payment of rent, claiming the Commercial Tenancies Act applied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord could not oust the Board's jurisdiction by unilaterally locking the tenant out.

The court further found no error of law in the Board's application of section 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction, despite the lease being labeled commercial.

The Director of Employment Standards sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding the calculation of overtime pay for commissioned salespersons under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation that the 'regular rate' for calculating overtime is based only on commissions earned during non-overtime hours.

However, the Court found the Board erred in allowing the employer to reconcile weeks where it paid more than the statutory minimum for overtime against weeks where it underpaid.

The application was allowed in part and remitted to the Board for recalculation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's refusal to deduct a CRA tax payment from her monthly employment earnings for ODSP purposes.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the payment and breached procedural fairness by not allowing her former spouse to represent her while she was at work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to consider the tax payment during a later review of business earnings.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had ample notice of the hearing and her former spouse was permitted to assist her.

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

The tenant had previously consented to an eviction order, which he appealed and had quashed.

He then sought a review of the consent order, which was dismissed, and appealed that review order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no question of law, was devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process aimed solely at delaying eviction.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the tenant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the self-represented respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of King J. dated February 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party, the Town of Caledon, brought a motion for leave to apply for judicial review of two decisions made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The court also ordered that the disputed amount paid into court remain there pending the final decision, and stayed the impugned orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $2,500.

The court also set an expedited schedule for the hearing of the appeal and any contemplated motion to stay the appeal pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Eight motions were brought for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of an interim decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The underlying decision found that the Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction with labour arbitrators to determine claims of discrimination and harassment falling within the scope of a collective agreement.

The court granted party status to the individuals and organizations who had party status in the proceeding below, and granted friend of the court status to two other organizations.

Three other organizations were denied leave to intervene to avoid duplication and maintain balance in the perspectives presented.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order for delay.

The tenant had filed the appeal over two and a half years prior but failed to order the required transcripts or take steps to perfect the appeal after a related judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant did not attend the motion or file responding materials.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal for delay, finding no reasonable explanation for the failure to pursue the appeal.

The Attorney General appealed an order requiring the production of an entire Crown brief from an ongoing criminal prosecution for use in a pending child protection case.

The motion judge had ordered broad disclosure because the Crown's Wagg Unit requested an indefinite adjournment to review the brief, which would have delayed the child protection trial.

On appeal, the parties reached a consent resolution requiring immediate production of the child's video statement and other witness statements, while giving the Crown 30 days to screen the remainder of the brief.

The Divisional Court approved the resolution and emphasized that a 24-week delay for Wagg vetting is unacceptable in child protection cases, which must be prioritized.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Homewood defendants and $1,000 to the defendant doctor.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $2,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated February 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs of $10,000 all-inclusive to the responding defendants.