Shaun O'Brien

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated October 15, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties sought an extension of time and leave to appeal two decisions of Stevenson J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $4,350 to the responding party.

The moving party, the presiding coroner at an inquest into several deaths in custody, brought a motion on consent for a sealing order over the coroner's inquest brief and confidential correspondence containing draft victim impact statements.

The motion was brought in the context of a judicial review application by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The Divisional Court granted the sealing order, applying the test from Sherman Estate.

The court found that the benefits of protecting the confidentiality of the investigative materials and the families' expectations outweighed the deleterious effects of sealing, preserving the integrity of the coroner's process.

The respondent, Framatome Canada, moved to quash the appellant's appeal of an associate judge's order regarding document production, arguing the order was interlocutory and brought in the wrong court.

The appellant cross-moved to transfer the appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court agreed that the underlying order was interlocutory and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

However, rather than dismissing the appeal, the court granted the cross-motion to transfer the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

Costs of both motions were reserved to the judge hearing the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order dismissing his request for review.

The landlord's application to evict the tenant for personal use had been dismissed because the property was owned by a corporation.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to make costs submissions at the initial hearing and that the Board erred in not awarding him costs due to the landlord's allegedly vexatious conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness since the tenant made written costs submissions on review, and no error of law in the Board's discretionary decision to deny costs.

The court dismissed John Cipolla’s appeal from a Small Claims Court order refusing to recognize a decision of the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (AIN) Tribunal.

The court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as the AIN Tribunal is not a recognized legal entity and there was no plausible basis for its decisions to be recognized by the court.

The court also rejected arguments based on international law and Indigenous rights, finding no statutory or legal authority for the AIN Tribunal’s recognition.

The moving party, a non-tenant occupant of a residential unit, brought a motion asking the Divisional Court to reconsider its decision dismissing the tenant's appeal of Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders, and to add her as a party.

The moving party had not participated in the initial Board hearing or the appeal before it was heard.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal, as the moving party should have raised her issues before the Board and appealed in a timely manner.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to file a costs outline.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Nadeau J. dated August 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no Costs Outline was provided, the court ordered no costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,682.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,620 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying benefits for neck and left wrist injuries and reducing benefits for non-cooperation with a work transition plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal was biased and ignored his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence and its decisions were reasonable.

The court noted that disagreement with the Tribunal's findings does not establish bias or unreasonableness.

The tenant sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

A stay of eviction was granted subject to the tenant making ongoing rent and arrears payments.

The tenant failed to make any payments, accumulating over $72,000 in arrears.

On the day of the hearing, the tenant withdrew his motion for an extension of time.

The court lifted the stay of eviction, ordered the tenant to vacate by December 15, 2024, and awarded costs of $13,893.92 to the landlord, finding the appeal was filed solely for delay.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting the tenants a $10,000 rent abatement for maintenance issues, including mould and leaks.

The landlord argued the Board breached procedural fairness by not allowing cross-examination of the tenant and erred in admitting hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably controlled its process, the landlord had ample opportunity to present his case, and the Board was statutorily permitted to admit hearsay evidence and order the abatement.

The appellants sought to appeal a decision declining to award costs against a law firm under s. 86(1)(b)(i) of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court held that leave to appeal was required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act because the appeal was solely regarding discretionary costs, and the costs order did not constitute a 'judgment' under s. 71 of the Construction Act.

Finding that the test for leave was not met, the court denied leave and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her claim for breach of contract regarding a roof replacement and granted the respondents' cross-claim for defamation based on negative online reviews.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and raised several errors regarding contract interpretation and defamation defences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no evidence of bias, and no palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

The moving party employer brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by the responding party union on the basis of prematurity.

The union sought to review a labour arbitrator's preliminary award regarding time limits under the collective agreement, arguing exceptional circumstances existed because the grievance was a test case with broad implications.

The Divisional Court held that the application was premature, finding that an agreement to treat the underlying decision as a test case does not on its own justify early intervention and that the circumstances were not exceptional.

The motion to quash was allowed and the application was dismissed.

The moving party, a lawyer whose licence was revoked by the Law Society Tribunal for professional misconduct, brought a motion for a stay of the revocation pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

While the grounds of appeal were not strong, they were not frivolous.

The court found the moving party would suffer irreparable financial harm and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given his current practice focusing on pro bono and contingency work for the Black community.

The motion for a stay was granted.