Shaun O'Brien

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.

The moving parties 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 parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and reserved the issue of costs to the panel deciding the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated October 15, 2024.

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

The moving parties sought an extension of time and leave to appeal two decisions of Stevenson J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $4,350 to the responding party.

The moving party, the presiding coroner at an inquest into several deaths in custody, brought a motion on consent for a sealing order over the coroner's inquest brief and confidential correspondence containing draft victim impact statements.

The motion was brought in the context of a judicial review application by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The Divisional Court granted the sealing order, applying the test from Sherman Estate.

The court found that the benefits of protecting the confidentiality of the investigative materials and the families' expectations outweighed the deleterious effects of sealing, preserving the integrity of the coroner's process.

The respondent, Framatome Canada, moved to quash the appellant's appeal of an associate judge's order regarding document production, arguing the order was interlocutory and brought in the wrong court.

The appellant cross-moved to transfer the appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court agreed that the underlying order was interlocutory and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

However, rather than dismissing the appeal, the court granted the cross-motion to transfer the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

Costs of both motions were reserved to the judge hearing the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order dismissing his request for review.

The landlord's application to evict the tenant for personal use had been dismissed because the property was owned by a corporation.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to make costs submissions at the initial hearing and that the Board erred in not awarding him costs due to the landlord's allegedly vexatious conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness since the tenant made written costs submissions on review, and no error of law in the Board's discretionary decision to deny costs.

The court dismissed John Cipolla’s appeal from a Small Claims Court order refusing to recognize a decision of the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (AIN) Tribunal.

The court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as the AIN Tribunal is not a recognized legal entity and there was no plausible basis for its decisions to be recognized by the court.

The court also rejected arguments based on international law and Indigenous rights, finding no statutory or legal authority for the AIN Tribunal’s recognition.

The moving party, a non-tenant occupant of a residential unit, brought a motion asking the Divisional Court to reconsider its decision dismissing the tenant's appeal of Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders, and to add her as a party.

The moving party had not participated in the initial Board hearing or the appeal before it was heard.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal, as the moving party should have raised her issues before the Board and appealed in a timely manner.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Nadeau J. dated August 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no Costs Outline was provided, the court ordered no costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to file a costs outline.