Shaun O'Brien

The appellant, a nurse practitioner, appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Committee found she had improperly issued 396 COVID-19 vaccine medical exemption letters to clients who merely watched an informational slide presentation.

The appellant argued she was acting as an educator providing informed consent and relying on public health directives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that the letters were medical exemptions and that the appellant breached multiple standards of practice.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias.

The applicant Town sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision finding that a proposed cemetery was in the public interest under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Tribunal had bifurcated the hearing, leaving the related site plan appeal under the Planning Act to be determined separately.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's process was not complete and that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of C.M. Smith dated December 10, 2025.

After being advised that the Court of Appeal determined the underlying order was a final order, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit in good faith for her daughter's residential occupation.

The tenant argued the Board erred by finding good faith without hearing testimony from the landlord, by refusing to join the tenant's maintenance applications, and by relying on a non-compliant statutory declaration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no statutory requirement for the landlord to testify, no breach of procedural fairness in the Board controlling its own procedure, and that the daughter's declaration substantially complied with the statutory requirements.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claims for breach of partnership and unjust enrichment, and ordering them to pay the respondent damages for breach of contract.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court rejected as it could have been obtained before trial.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the respondent was a lender, not a partner, and that there was a juristic reason for the payments she received.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, which had the effect of lifting the stay of the Board's orders.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application against the opposing party's insurer and legal counsel in a personal injury action.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the relationship between opposing parties in litigation does not fall within the social areas protected by the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision as reasonable, finding no jurisdiction under the Code and rejecting the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and Charter violations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) regarding his complaint against two police officers.

The applicant alleged the Director's decision was procedurally unfair due to a lack of disclosure and unreasonable due to factual inaccuracies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant received adequate procedural fairness as he was provided with the information the Director relied upon.

The court also held that the Director's decision was reasonable, noting that the applicant's arguments amounted to minor missteps that did not undermine the substance of the decision.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent roofing company.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the scope of the roofing contract, misapplied the burden of proof, and failed to apply the correct standard of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied principles of contractual interpretation, properly required the appellant to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, and made reasonable factual findings that the respondent's work did not cause the alleged defects.

The appellant tenants appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application regarding the landlord's entry into the property.

The tenants alleged the landlord entered illegally and substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment by accessing a basement storage area through the backyard with a three-hour notice window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the sufficiency of the notice and the tenants' lack of exclusive use of the backyard were questions of mixed fact and law, and revealed no extricable error of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying his request for default judgment in an unlawful reprisal application.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature and an abuse of process.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as patently premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to reschedule a hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature and moot because the hearing was subsequently rescheduled and the application was ultimately deemed abandoned.

The court gave the self-represented applicant a final opportunity to amend his notice of application to challenge the final orders of the Board, failing which the court would consider dismissing the application.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment decision dismissing their oppression claim against the respondent in his personal capacity.

The motion judge had found that the appellants did not qualify as 'complainants' under section 245 of the Business Corporations Act, as they were not creditors and their status as potential creditors did not make them proper persons to bring an oppression claim.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law.

The court confirmed that the motion judge properly applied the test for complainant status and the framework for partial summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing two related actions for delay following a status review under Rule 48.14(5).

The actions, arising from a property dispute, had not advanced beyond the pleadings stage after six to seven years.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's application of the Henderson test, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither responding party filed a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to retroactively terminate child support for his adult son and order repayment of $8,533.

The motion judge found the son remained entitled to support due to intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which impeded his ability to become self-supporting.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

ITCAD, a vendor of record for the Ontario government, appealed a summary judgment decision awarding punitive damages to the respondent consultants for withholding their pay.

The consultants cross-appealed the motion judge's finding that they breached a non-competition clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed ITCAD's appeal, upholding the punitive damages award as ITCAD's conduct in withholding pay to force the consultants to sign with another vendor was unacceptable.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the non-competition clause unenforceable because ITCAD lost its vendor of record status and was using the clause to circumvent the government's decision, which was contrary to public policy.

The appellant passed away after perfecting an appeal of a final order arising from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing.

Due to the appellant's death, the proceeding was automatically stayed.

Appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record as he could not obtain instructions from an authorized estate representative.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, ordered the proceeding to continue against the appellant's estate pursuant to rule 10.02, required the respondent to provide a status update within 90 days, and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.