Shaun O'Brien

The moving parties (Ontario) sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay an earlier order on an expedited basis.

The court declined to schedule the stay motion before a single judge prior to the leave to appeal motion, noting the responding parties needed time to respond to new affidavit material and that the matter was better suited for a panel.

The court established a schedule for the exchange of materials for the leave to appeal motion to be heard in writing by a panel.

The landlords brought a motion to lift the stay pending appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

A previous court order required the tenants to make monthly rent and arrears payments as a condition of the stay.

The tenants failed to make the required payments and did not file responding materials to the motion.

The court lifted the stay, allowing the eviction order to be enforced, and set a deadline for the tenants to confirm if they intend to proceed with the appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from an associate judge's reasons on a construction lien reference, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction under s. 71 of the Construction Lien Act.

After the respondents filed their motion materials, the appellant abandoned the appeal.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, noting they had warned the appellant of the jurisdictional issue and offered to settle on a no-costs basis if the appeal was discontinued.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondents' warnings were misleading and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellants appealed an associate judge's order dismissing their motion to withdraw admissions from their statement of defence regarding the existence of two holographic agreements in a property dispute.

The court found the order was interlocutory and properly belonged in the Superior Court of Justice, but the judge exercised jurisdiction to hear it.

The court held the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in relying on cross-examination transcripts or in finding the appellants failed to meet the test for withdrawing admissions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the landlord an above guideline rent increase (AGI) for eligible capital expenditures related to window and door replacements.

The tenant argued the replacements were regular maintenance, his specific unit should not face an increase as his windows were not replaced, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's determination that the work constituted capital expenditures under the Residential Tenancies Act, and no breaches of procedural fairness.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending appeal.

The court had previously imposed conditions on the stay, requiring the tenant to pay monthly rent and specific amounts towards arrears.

The landlord provided evidence that the tenant failed to make the required payment for arrears and had not paid rent since August 2024.

The tenant did not respond to the motion.

The court accepted the landlord's evidence, lifted the stay, and permitted the sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The moving party, a provincial regulator, brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review by a waste management corporation.

The corporation sought an order of mandamus requiring the regulator to enforce the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016, alleging economic loss due to non-enforcement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious the application could not succeed because mandamus is not available to compel general enforcement untethered to specific facts, and the regulator's enforcement powers are discretionary.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a screening committee's order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP).

The applicant argued the remedy was overbroad as the committee's concerns were limited to record-keeping and communication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the committee had wide-ranging concerns about the applicant's practice, including post-surgical management, which justified the broader remediation program.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 23, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded all-inclusive costs of $2,200 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of McCarthy J. dated October 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the all-inclusive amount of $3,000.

The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding $4,700 to the respondent marketing agency for breach of contract.

The trial judge found the appellant terminated the marketing services agreement without providing the required 30 days' notice.

On appeal, the appellant argued the contract was formed via email without a termination clause and alleged a denial of procedural fairness during closing submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude the written contract sent later governed the relationship and that no procedural fairness breach occurred.

The appellant, who was in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

The SBT had dismissed her appeal regarding ODSP's payment of a $476 invoice to a taxi company, finding the issue moot as it did not affect her rights or benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the SBT had no jurisdiction to decide factual disputes for use in other proceedings, such as the appellant's efforts to regain control of her property from the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an ODACC adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the leave motion at $30,000, payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the application for judicial review.

The court also granted an interim stay of the impugned payment order pending a motion for an interlocutory stay or further direction from the case management judge.

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

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

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for the landlord's mother's personal use.

The tenant argued that the absence of a hearing recording and the Board member's curtailment of cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the affidavit evidence provided an adequate record for review, the Board member reasonably limited irrelevant questioning, and the Board properly considered the tenant's circumstances under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency to add internal confidential documents from a previously screened-out complaint to the record of proceeding for his current judicial review application.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that judicial review is not a de novo hearing and discovery is not available.

The court held that the administrative decision-maker is not required to produce all documents in its possession that were not put before or considered by the decision-maker in the specific case under review.

The appellant brought a motion asking the Divisional Court to reconsider its previous judgment dismissing his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that the Court of Appeal had recently dismissed the appellant's motion for leave to appeal the very decision he sought to have reconsidered.

Consequently, the Divisional Court found it was functus officio and dismissed the motion for reconsideration as fundamentally flawed and an abuse of process.

Following the summary dismissal of the appellants' appeal for failing to provide Small Claims Court transcripts, the respondent sought costs of $12,812.73.

The court awarded elevated costs of $7,500 to the respondent, noting the appellants' failure to comply with court directions, their late adjournment request, and the unnecessary expenses incurred by the respondent.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which terminated his tenancy for permitting illegal acts (drug possession and trafficking) and impairing the safety of others in a supportive housing complex.

The tenant argued the adjudicator made findings based on 'no evidence' and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator's factual conclusions were supported by ample circumstantial evidence and her reasons were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment but failed to order or file the trial transcripts, including the deputy judge's oral reasons for decision.

Despite prior warnings from a case management judge that the appeal could not proceed without the reasons, the appellants deliberately refused to obtain them, arguing they were unnecessary for legal issues.

The Divisional Court summarily dismissed the appeal due to the appellants' failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.