Shaun O'Brien

The applicants sought judicial review of administrative decisions dismissing disciplinary charges against two police officers for lack of jurisdiction.

The hearing officers and the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the six-month statutory deadline under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act for serving a notice of hearing had expired.

The applicants argued that the deadline should be paused during a review by the Complaints Director.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the administrative decision-makers reasonably interpreted the plain wording of the statute, which contained no exception for a Director's review.

At a case conference, the Licence Appeal Tribunal sought leave to participate substantively in an appeal and judicial review of its decision regarding whether a wheel loader is an 'automobile' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent injured party was not participating in the appeal.

The court applied the Goodis and Ontario Power Generation factors and granted the Tribunal expanded participation on all issues, provided it does not advocate for a particular outcome or adopt an adversarial tone.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court previously lifted the stay of eviction due to the tenant's failure to pay rent and arrears.

The tenant subsequently failed to file appeal materials or advise the court of his intention to pursue the appeal within the directed timeframe.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for delay and non-compliance with court directions.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application regarding the landlord's alleged illegal entry and interference.

The dispute centered on whether the basement was included in the lease.

The Board found that although the tenants initially believed the basement was included, they accepted occupancy knowing it was excluded.

On appeal, the tenants argued the Board erred by not applying the contra proferentem principle to the written lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Residential Tenancies Act, the Board is required to ascertain the real substance of the transaction and was not limited to the written lease.

The tenants failed to demonstrate an error of law.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and that the respondent insurer was not required to assign a claim number.

The appellant's policy with the respondent had lapsed prior to the motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that anyone involved in an accident in Ontario has SABS coverage and that the respondent was required to pay benefits pending a priority dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's interpretation that 'a particular motor vehicle liability policy' refers to a specific policy, not a generic one.

The court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding page limits and adjudicator expertise.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal refusing to recuse its adjudicators for alleged bias.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was an abuse of process because the tribunal proceedings were ongoing.

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

The appellant husband sought to appeal a final order from a family law trial made under the Divorce Act to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act did not extend to this final order, as the payments ordered exceeded $50,000 and the order was not made by a Family Court judge or under an Ontario statute.

The appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the clear lack of jurisdiction.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Chalmers J. dated July 12, 2024.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Committee of Adjustment granting his neighbour's applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

The applicant, an adjacent property owner, argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing to bring the judicial review, as third parties have no statutory right of appeal under the Planning Act.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant was afforded the requisite low level of procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were adequate.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was provided by the responding party, no costs were ordered.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy due to substantial rental arrears.

While the tenant met the criteria for intention to appeal and explanation for delay, the court found the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The tenant's arguments regarding the Board's failure to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic under s. 83(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and alleged bias did not raise plausible errors of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced a 468-page statement of claim against 38 defendants, alleging that her children's autism was caused by environmental toxins and acetaminophen, and seeking billions of dollars to fund a fecal microbiota transplant program.

A motion judge dismissed the claim against most defendants under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous and vexatious, but allowed the claims against the Bayer and Johnson defendants to proceed.

The Bayer and Johnson defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the plaintiff's lack of standing, the court's inability to order the requested research funding, and the numerous hallmarks of querulous litigation present in the claim.

The action was dismissed against the remaining defendants.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a parenting time motion.

Although the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable explanation for the short delay, and there was no prejudice to the responding party, the court dismissed the motion.

The court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the moving party failed to identify any palpable and overriding error or error of law in the highly discretionary costs order.

The appellants appealed an order made at a case conference holding them liable for tax penalties and interest resulting from their oppressive conduct.

They argued the application judge lacked authority to make a substantive order at a case conference and denied them procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that Rule 50.13(6) permits judges to issue directions, including substantive orders, at case conferences in appropriate circumstances to promote efficiency.

The court found no procedural unfairness, as the appellants were informed of the conference's purpose and had the opportunity to submit materials.

The appeal was allowed in part only to correct an agreed-upon calculation error.

The appellant retained the respondent solicitor for a residential property purchase and later sought to assess his final account.

The assessment officer found the requisition was out of time under the Solicitors Act, and a motion judge subsequently dismissed the appellant's motion to permit the assessment to proceed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the account had been paid and the appellant failed to demonstrate any special circumstances under section 11 of the Solicitors Act to justify an assessment.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of three interlocutory decisions made by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice in a criminal proceeding.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters.

The court dismissed the motion, confirming that its judicial review powers under the Judicial Review Procedure Act do not extend to criminal orders, which fall under federal jurisdiction and the Criminal Code.

The court declined to make an order restricting the applicant's access to the courts at this time.

The moving party, acting self-represented, brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 10, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,000.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of Howie J. dated February 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $9,085 to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving parties (Ontario) sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay an earlier order on an expedited basis.

The court declined to schedule the stay motion before a single judge prior to the leave to appeal motion, noting the responding parties needed time to respond to new affidavit material and that the matter was better suited for a panel.

The court established a schedule for the exchange of materials for the leave to appeal motion to be heard in writing by a panel.

The landlords brought a motion to lift the stay pending appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

A previous court order required the tenants to make monthly rent and arrears payments as a condition of the stay.

The tenants failed to make the required payments and did not file responding materials to the motion.

The court lifted the stay, allowing the eviction order to be enforced, and set a deadline for the tenants to confirm if they intend to proceed with the appeal.