Shaun O'Brien

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent roofing company.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the scope of the roofing contract, misapplied the burden of proof, and failed to apply the correct standard of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied principles of contractual interpretation, properly required the appellant to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, and made reasonable factual findings that the respondent's work did not cause the alleged defects.

The appellant tenants appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application regarding the landlord's entry into the property.

The tenants alleged the landlord entered illegally and substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment by accessing a basement storage area through the backyard with a three-hour notice window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the sufficiency of the notice and the tenants' lack of exclusive use of the backyard were questions of mixed fact and law, and revealed no extricable error of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying his request for default judgment in an unlawful reprisal application.

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

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as patently premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to reschedule a hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature and moot because the hearing was subsequently rescheduled and the application was ultimately deemed abandoned.

The court gave the self-represented applicant a final opportunity to amend his notice of application to challenge the final orders of the Board, failing which the court would consider dismissing the application.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment decision dismissing their oppression claim against the respondent in his personal capacity.

The motion judge had found that the appellants did not qualify as 'complainants' under section 245 of the Business Corporations Act, as they were not creditors and their status as potential creditors did not make them proper persons to bring an oppression claim.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law.

The court confirmed that the motion judge properly applied the test for complainant status and the framework for partial summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with 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 and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing two related actions for delay following a status review under Rule 48.14(5).

The actions, arising from a property dispute, had not advanced beyond the pleadings stage after six to seven years.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's application of the Henderson test, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither responding party filed a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

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.