Shaun O'Brien

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had continuous impairments, they were not substantial and did not substantially restrict his activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court applied the correctness standard of review and found no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision granting the respondent's request for prompt payment under the Construction Act.

The adjudicator found jurisdiction on the basis that the contract was not completed because more than 1% of the contract price was owing.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the adjudicator was plainly wrong in law, as 'price of completion' under s. 2(3) of the Act refers to the value of uncompleted work, not the quantum of disputed payment claims.

The matter was remitted for a fresh determination before a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed a decision denying him leave to amend his statement of claim in a libel action against the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's decision, finding no error in the application of issue estoppel to prevent the addition of the appellant's professional corporation as a plaintiff, as a previous judge had already ruled the corporation had no tenable cause of action.

The court also upheld the refusal to allow scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs about a non-party, and the refusal to permit a claim for document production within the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Panel that upheld the revocation of his licence to practise law for professional misconduct, including mortgage fraud and misappropriation of client funds.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Division erred in deeming facts and documents admitted after he provided only generic denials and objections to a request to admit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct amounted to a refusal to engage in the admissions process and that the Appeal Panel made no reviewable errors in its comprehensive reasons or its order.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Boswell J. dated January 24, 2024.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

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

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

Neither party uploaded materials to CaseLines despite obligations under the Consolidated Practice Direction and reminders from the court office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed his motion opposing the confirmation of a Construction Lien Report.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was essentially repeating the same submissions made to the lower court.

The appeal was dismissed for the reasons given by the Superior Court judge, and costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that summarily dismissed his complaints regarding his treatment at the respondent facility.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and negligence, claiming his medical records contained errors and his condition was not as serious as indicated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the complaint did not raise a serious issue of discrimination on a prohibited ground.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of eviction pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had previously been ordered to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of the stay but failed to make any payments.

The tenant did not provide substantive submissions in response to the motion.

The court lifted the stay of eviction and awarded costs of $1,600 to the landlord.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Akazaki J., along with motions to extend time and for a stay/injunction pending appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal based on the materials filed, rendering the other motions moot.

The court noted, however, that it did not agree with the lower court's finding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an urgent motion before a proceeding is commenced, citing Rule 37.17 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated January 2, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 31, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent leave to bring a derivative action.

The appellants argued the motions judge applied the wrong burden of proof regarding good faith, erred in finding the action was in the corporation's best interest, and failed to consider whether an oppression remedy was more appropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's factual findings on good faith and the corporation's best interests.

The court also declined to consider the oppression remedy argument as it was not raised before the motions judge.

The appellant appealed Landlord and Tenant Board orders finding he was not a member of the respondent housing co-operative and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had previously resigned his membership and his ex-spouse, the remaining member, had abandoned the unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal solely on the basis that the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict an unauthorized occupant (non-member) from a co-op, a point conceded by the respondent.

The appellant's other grounds of appeal, including claims regarding notice, membership status, and standing to challenge his ex-spouse's eviction, were dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision regarding a developer's site plan application.

The Tribunal had found the application complete despite the developer failing to attend a mandatory pre-application consultation.

The court granted the extension, finding the moving party's delay was short and adequately explained by its initial attempt to seek leave to appeal, and that the proposed application raised apparent grounds for relief that should be determined by a panel.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for delay and non-compliance with court directions.

The tenant had previously been granted an extension of time to appeal on the condition of making monthly payments.

The court found that the tenant had substantially complied with the directions, including making the required payments and taking steps to obtain transcripts.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hassan J. dated January 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The Tribunal had dismissed his application alleging discrimination regarding a summer education program for Black youth, finding he lacked standing and the program was a valid special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, concluding there were no apparent grounds for relief because the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory tribunal order.

Applying established case law, the court confirmed that absent clear statutory language, there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory tribunal decision under either the Ontario Land Tribunal Act or the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it was doomed to fail for lack of jurisdiction.