Shaun O'Brien

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an eviction order for rental arrears.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the Board relied on correspondence introduced by the landlord's paralegal without cross-examination, and that the Board placed an unfair burden on them to prove they did not receive the hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was entitled to admit the reliable documentary evidence under its procedural rules and properly weighed the evidence on a balance of probabilities.

The Court also found no error in the Board's decision to hear the review request before addressing the landlord's breach of an interim order.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent vacant possession of a co-ownership unit and the right to dispose of the appellant's interest to satisfy over $110,000 in unpaid damages and costs from a prior proceeding.

After a motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed for lacking a serious issue to be tried, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant failed to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on orders made in the previous application.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an endorsement of the lower court.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario placing his appeal on hold due to an administrative practice limiting individuals to two active appeals.

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

Despite the applicant's submissions, the court found the IPC's letter was an interlocutory administrative direction, not a final decision.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a tribunal hearing division that refused to dismiss a professional conduct application against her.

The conduct application stemmed from allegations of cheating on licensing examinations.

During case management, the respondent requested the application be dismissed as premature.

The court dismissed the judicial review application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court emphasized the longstanding principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and costs decision resulting from four consolidated actions related to a construction project.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence (trucking invoices and dump tickets) without requiring the truck drivers to testify, and by misapprehending evidence regarding soil quality and excavation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly admitted the documents under the principled approach to hearsay through viva voce testimony, especially since the appellants had not objected at trial and had taken an 'all or nothing' approach by alleging fraud.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the poor soil conditions and the necessity of trucking soil offsite.

The appeal regarding the apportionment of storage costs for a Ferrari given as compensation was also dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior decision and brought a motion for the production of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and dismissed the motion for document production without prejudice to steps that could be taken in the Superior Court.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated April 19, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,390.

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

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraph 2 of a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to upload a costs outline.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no 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.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated April 5, 2024.

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

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying motor vehicle accident benefits.

The moving party had previously discontinued an application for judicial review due to adverse case law that was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief, as the causation issue had already been decided on appeal and the allegations of institutional bias lacked specifics.

The court also noted the lengthy delay and the principle of finality weighed against granting the extension.

The moving parties sought security for costs of an appeal brought by the responding party, who had been removed as a director and CEO of a closely-held technology company following a finding of oppressive conduct.

The moving parties argued the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and that the responding party had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the appeal had a low prospect of success, it was not vexatious, and the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden to show the responding party had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The appellant, a francophone litigant in a family law matter, appealed two interlocutory orders.

The motion judge had implicitly denied his request for a bilingual judge, instead ordering that an interpreter be provided for an English-speaking judge.

The case conference judge subsequently ordered all future hearings to be in writing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the right to a bilingual proceeding under section 126(4) of the Courts of Justice Act is a substantive right, not subject to judicial discretion.

The court set aside the motion judge's order and directed a new case conference before a bilingual judge.

The court also replaced the written hearing order, directing virtual proceedings with a telephone option to accommodate the appellant's illiteracy and hearing difficulties.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario brought a motion for substituted service of a notice of appeal and certificate respecting evidence on the respondent, the sole officer and director of a corporate licensee.

The appeal concerned a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the proposed revocation of a liquor licence.

The court found that the Registrar had made comprehensive but unsuccessful efforts to serve the respondent personally and that the respondent was likely aware of the appeal.

The motion for substituted service was granted.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy based on an N12 notice for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board erred by not requiring the landlord to use an N13 notice for renovations, and by applying a 'primary motivation' test that ignored a ten-month delay before the landlord would occupy the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court held that a landlord is not required to use the N13 process if they meet the requirements of section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the Board's finding of good faith was a factual determination outside the court's jurisdiction.