Shaun O'Brien

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to retroactively terminate child support for his adult son and order repayment of $8,533.

The motion judge found the son remained entitled to support due to intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which impeded his ability to become self-supporting.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

ITCAD, a vendor of record for the Ontario government, appealed a summary judgment decision awarding punitive damages to the respondent consultants for withholding their pay.

The consultants cross-appealed the motion judge's finding that they breached a non-competition clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed ITCAD's appeal, upholding the punitive damages award as ITCAD's conduct in withholding pay to force the consultants to sign with another vendor was unacceptable.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the non-competition clause unenforceable because ITCAD lost its vendor of record status and was using the clause to circumvent the government's decision, which was contrary to public policy.

The appellant passed away after perfecting an appeal of a final order arising from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing.

Due to the appellant's death, the proceeding was automatically stayed.

Appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record as he could not obtain instructions from an authorized estate representative.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, ordered the proceeding to continue against the appellant's estate pursuant to rule 10.02, required the respondent to provide a status update within 90 days, and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its breach of contract and construction lien claims and granting the respondent's counterclaim for fraud relating to a real estate development project.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by allowing an amendment to plead fraud without formal leave under the Construction Act, admitting propensity evidence, misapprehending evidence of fraud, and failing to meaningfully analyze the breach of contract claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge implicitly granted leave for the amendment on consent, properly used past misconduct for credibility assessment rather than propensity, and made factual findings of fraud and fundamental breach that were free from palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for additional construction work performed outside the scope of their written agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to admit a late affidavit, failing to apply the correct tests for oral contracts and quantum meruit, and providing insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised trial management discretion to exclude the late affidavit, reasonably valued the additional work at the contractor's regular rates under quantum meruit principles, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

The appellants were victims of a wire fraud and sought to freeze the recipient bank account.

A case management judge ordered the parties to attend a case conference to address the freeze and the account holder's motion to release funds.

However, a different motion judge subsequently granted the account holder's motion in writing without notice to the appellants, permitting the release of $10,000 per month.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by making an order that conflicted with the prior case management direction and breached procedural fairness by refusing to reconsider the order once notified of the lack of service.

The moving party, a third party in the action, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Kimmel J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party, a third party in the underlying action, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.

The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to compel the examination of a Vice-President at Infrastructure Ontario in the context of an application for judicial review challenging the expropriation of its properties.

The applicant sought to supplement the record with evidence regarding the scope, rationale, and scheme of the expropriations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable evidentiary basis that the proposed witness participated in briefing the decision-maker, nor did the proposed topics fall within the limited exceptions for supplementing a record on judicial review.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Tzimas J. dated August 1, 2025.

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

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which declined to review the College's decision to take no action on his complaint against the College's registrar.

The applicant's complaint alleged professional misconduct regarding the College's policies on COVID-19 vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the complaint was vexatious, an abuse of process, and a collateral attack on College policy.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant contractor registered a construction lien against the respondent's property but failed to perfect it by registering a certificate of action in a timely manner.

The motions judge declared the lien expired and vacated it pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Construction Act, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the appellant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court affirmed the decision, holding that the failure to perfect a lien is a statutory breach that cannot be cured by procedural rules or equitable doctrines.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented applicant requested an in-person ex-parte motion to appeal an order dismissing his application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that an appeal of the order lies to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

Furthermore, pursuant to the previous order, the applicant required permission to file materials, which was denied because he sought to start his appeal in the wrong court.

The applicant sought judicial review of orders made by Superior Court judges dismissing his underlying action and awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review of a Superior Court judge's decision.

The proper route to challenge the underlying orders was an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to terminate a tenancy.

The landlord argued the building was originally a 'life lease' building exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore section 51(1), which protects tenants during condominium conversions, did not apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the Act applied was a question of mixed fact and law based on incomplete evidence regarding the prior life lease, and thus outside the court's appellate jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $11,740 plus costs to the respondent for residential painting work.

The appellant argued the deputy judge ignored his evidence, erred in finding he breached the contracts, and improperly calculated damages and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's factual findings and no error in the exercise of discretion regarding delay or costs.

The court also rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The moving parties sought a stay of a new Ontario government policy restricting international medical graduates from participating in the first iteration of the medical residency matching process (CaRMS) unless they attended high school in Ontario for two years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying application for judicial review.

The court held that the policy was not an exercise of a specific statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, nor was certiorari available against the Crown in these circumstances.

The inclusion of Charter arguments did not expand the court's statutory jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order reducing the respondent's obligation to pay interest on child support arrears.

The principal arrears had been satisfied, but over $10,000 in interest remained.

The motion judge reduced the interest owed to $2,229, payable at $75 per month, citing the respondent's limited income and the decrease in market interest rates over the past 20 years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that varying post-judgment interest was within the judge's discretion under the Family Law Act and Courts of Justice Act, and the decision reflected no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The tenant appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including an eviction order based on the landlord's requirement of the unit for his own residential occupation, and orders denying an extension of time to request a review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary denial of the time extension, no breach of procedural fairness during the hearing, and no error in the Board's application of section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.