Shaun O'Brien

The appellant father appealed an interim motion order that granted the respondent mother sole decision-making authority to vaccinate their eldest child against COVID-19 and significantly restricted the father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the vaccination, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on government recommendations and the child's best interests.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding parenting time, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the father's unvaccinated status as a primary factor and unjustifiably sacrificing the children's meaningful relationship with their father.

The parenting schedule was remitted to the lower court.

The applicant, a chiropractor previously disciplined for professional misconduct, sought an interim stay of an amended College bylaw that disqualified him from running in an upcoming Council election.

The College had recently amended the bylaw to extend the disqualification period for professional misconduct from three to six years, making it effective immediately.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, using the elevated 'strong likelihood of success' standard because the stay would effectively determine the election outcome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the bylaw would be found unreasonable, retrospective, or passed in bad faith on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions, including three decisions from 2017 and 2019.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the applications regarding the older decisions due to excessive delay.

The applicant provided submissions, but the court found the delay of over four to five years to be inordinate with no credible explanation.

The court dismissed the applications for judicial review of the 2017 and 2019 decisions as abuses of process that were doomed to fail.

The applicant, representing indirect waterfront property owners, sought judicial review of the Town of Georgina's process for addressing ownership and use of lakeside properties along a municipal road allowance.

The applicant argued the Town unfairly denied building permits and unilaterally determined road allowance boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Town's adoption of an action plan was a work in progress and did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The court also declined to grant mandatory relief, noting that the ownership dispute could be more appropriately resolved through other legal processes, such as an appeal under the Building Code Act or an application under the Boundaries Act.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.

The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to an in-person hearing on March 1, 2023, making the date peremptory on the appellant, with or without counsel.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated September 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 14, 2022.

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

The applicants 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 to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to comply with prior court directions to pay rent, file appeal materials, and did not appear on the motion.

The court found the appeal was continued solely for delay and to obtain the benefit of an automatic stay.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 24, 2022.

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 defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated August 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs of the motion were awarded to the moving parties in the amount of $7,000 inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against a police officer.

The applicant had complained about the officer's investigation into an alleged assault, asserting the officer failed to lay charges, mischaracterized the incident, and ignored his injuries.

The OIPRD determined under s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act that it was not in the public interest to deal with the complaint, finding no evidence of malice or bad faith by the officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Parayeski J., dated August 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Liability for costs of the motion was reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, with the quantum fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs fixed at $3,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis and scheduled a case management teleconference to set a schedule.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 16, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $3,500.