Shaun O'Brien

The moving party, Telus Communications Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated January 12, 2021 and August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Faieta J. dated August 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Myers J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party was not required to provide materials, no costs were ordered.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit summarized evidence and proceedings from the arbitration hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review, as it was an attempt to reframe the evidence before the arbitrator.

The affidavit was struck with leave to file a reconstituted version containing only exhibits and closing submissions.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant had requested a review of the original order, but due to an administrative error, the LTB's review order dismissing the request was not released until months later.

Applying the Enbridge Gas factors, the court found that the tenant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by waiting for the review order, and the proposed appeal raised a question of law regarding the statutory affidavit requirements.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination application against her professional regulatory college.

The HRTO had dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period, challenged adjudicative functions protected by immunity, and relied on inadmissible investigation documents.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding the college's constitutional status, minor corrections made to the HRTO decision, and the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration request.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim order that denied his request to file additional evidence on a motion that had already been argued and was under reserve.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal was doomed to fail because the underlying motion had not yet been decided, making the appeal premature.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, LSN Investments Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Perell.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,985.56.

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

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

The moving party 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 responding parties fixed at $3,000.

The moving parties, who were appealing an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, brought a motion to be referred to by pseudonyms in the court proceeding.

The eviction stemmed from the moving parties' inappropriate conduct toward other tenants regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and masks.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or that the information was so sensitive as to be an affront to dignity.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a condition attached to their liquor and cannabis licences that prohibited the former owner from being employed in any capacity.

The Registrar imposed the condition under the Risk Based Licensing regime without disclosing the underlying risk assessment summary or providing particulars of the alleged infractions.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Registrar breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate notice and disclosure, which prevented the applicants from knowing the case they had to meet.

The decisions were quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The appeal was scheduled to be heard, but at the outset, counsel for the respondent raised a potential conflict of interest regarding one of the appellant's counsel, who had previously acted for the respondent in the same dispute.

The court adjourned the appeal and set a schedule for the respondent to bring a conflict motion, reserving the costs of the attendance to the judge hearing the motion or the appeal.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order that imposed testing requirements and access restrictions based on his COVID-19 vaccination status, and raised issues regarding the vaccination of the children.

The Divisional Court set aside the restrictions related to the father's vaccination status, finding the motion judge erred in imposing them.

The court reserved its decision on the vaccination of the children and the ultimate parenting schedule, directing the parties to attempt to agree on a temporary schedule in the interim.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The moving party, a former superintendent, argued his employment was unlawfully terminated due to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise an error of law, and that further delay would cause ongoing prejudice to the landlord given the accumulating rental arrears.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenants' appeal for delay and to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The tenants had failed to perfect their appeal within the prescribed time, failed to comply with court-ordered payment directions, and did not respond to the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for delay by analogy to Rule 61.13(3.1) and ordered the tenants to pay costs.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

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

The parties separated following incidents of family violence, including the respondent hitting their child and physically and sexually assaulting the applicant.

The applicant sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time, while the respondent sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found the applicant's evidence of family violence credible and ordered that the respondent's parenting time be supervised while inside the home, but permitted unsupervised time outside the home.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility and a permanent restraining order against the respondent.

The court also imputed rental income to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered him to pay an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant mother struggled with alcohol abuse, leading to the respondent father becoming the primary caregiver for their three children.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, with the children residing primarily with the father and the mother having parenting time 5 out of 14 days subject to alcohol monitoring.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including valuing the father's security business on the date of marriage, determining the parties' incomes for support purposes, and addressing claims of unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $882,115.16 and retroactive spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve multi-jurisdictional family litigation by consolidating their dispute into an alternative dispute resolution process in Ontario.

The day after signing, the moving party was served with a new defamation proceeding commenced by the responding party in Iran.

The moving party sought to set aside the Minutes of Settlement, arguing the new proceeding was a fundamental breach.

The court found that the responding party's failure to disclose and withdraw the defamation claim constituted a fundamental breach of an implied term to end all related litigation.

The court allowed the motion, set aside the Minutes of Settlement, but declined to award damages or address jurisdiction.