Shaun O'Brien

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 14, 2022.

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

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to comply with prior court directions to pay rent, file appeal materials, and did not appear on the motion.

The court found the appeal was continued solely for delay and to obtain the benefit of an automatic stay.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated August 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs of the motion were awarded to the moving parties in the amount of $7,000 inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 24, 2022.

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 decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against a police officer.

The applicant had complained about the officer's investigation into an alleged assault, asserting the officer failed to lay charges, mischaracterized the incident, and ignored his injuries.

The OIPRD determined under s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act that it was not in the public interest to deal with the complaint, finding no evidence of malice or bad faith by the officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Parayeski J., dated August 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Liability for costs of the motion was reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, with the quantum fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs fixed at $3,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis and scheduled a case management teleconference to set a schedule.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Faieta J. dated August 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 16, 2022.

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

The moving party, Telus Communications Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated January 12, 2021 and August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Myers J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party was not required to provide materials, no costs were ordered.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit summarized evidence and proceedings from the arbitration hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review, as it was an attempt to reframe the evidence before the arbitrator.

The affidavit was struck with leave to file a reconstituted version containing only exhibits and closing submissions.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant had requested a review of the original order, but due to an administrative error, the LTB's review order dismissing the request was not released until months later.

Applying the Enbridge Gas factors, the court found that the tenant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by waiting for the review order, and the proposed appeal raised a question of law regarding the statutory affidavit requirements.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination application against her professional regulatory college.

The HRTO had dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period, challenged adjudicative functions protected by immunity, and relied on inadmissible investigation documents.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding the college's constitutional status, minor corrections made to the HRTO decision, and the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration request.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim order that denied his request to file additional evidence on a motion that had already been argued and was under reserve.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal was doomed to fail because the underlying motion had not yet been decided, making the appeal premature.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, LSN Investments Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Perell.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,985.56.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,000.