Shaun O'Brien

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The Tribunal had dismissed his application alleging discrimination regarding a summer education program for Black youth, finding he lacked standing and the program was a valid special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, concluding there were no apparent grounds for relief because the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory tribunal order.

Applying established case law, the court confirmed that absent clear statutory language, there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory tribunal decision under either the Ontario Land Tribunal Act or the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it was doomed to fail for lack of jurisdiction.

The tenants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that dismissed their motion to void a prior eviction order.

The LTB argued that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory LTB decision.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no statutory provision in the Residential Tenancies Act or the Courts of Justice Act conferring such jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to pursue their remedies at the LTB.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis of illness and a recent change in counsel.

The respondent initially opposed the adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but directed that the appeal proceed in writing, with a timetable for further submissions.

The court also refused to permit the appellants to file new evidentiary material, noting a lack of diligence in pursuing its admission.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside an earlier endorsement that lifted a stay of eviction, arguing he was not served with the notice of motion.

The landlord claimed he served the notice personally, but this was inconsistent with his earlier email to the court stating a notice of motion was not required.

The court set aside the earlier endorsement, reinstating the stay of eviction pending appeal, and set an expedited timetable for the appeal.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders that set aside a noting in default and struck his pleadings with leave to amend.

The court applied the test for extending time, focusing on the justice of the case.

The court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the motion judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference and did not raise issues of broader importance.

The motion was dismissed to avoid further delay in the underlying family law proceeding, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant brought a motion in writing for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that reasons and a decision on costs would follow in a subsequent endorsement.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

After multiple extensions and failures to perfect the appeal, the appellant requested an adjournment on the eve of the hearing, citing a recently filed human rights complaint and an inability to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment, finding no reasonable prospect of the appellant retaining counsel and noting that human rights issues were not raised before the Board.

The appeal was dismissed for delay and failure to comply with court directions, though the eviction was stayed for 90 days to allow the appellant to find new housing.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order requiring them to produce documents protected by solicitor-client and settlement privilege.

The underlying action involved allegations of professional negligence against the respondents regarding their representation in prior litigation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the abrogation of privilege.

The lack of reasons prevented meaningful appellate review of whether privilege had been waived or if the pleadings were sufficient to destroy the privileges.

The portion of the order requiring production of the privileged documents was set aside.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court requiring him to pay outstanding costs and post security for costs for his family law appeals.

The appellant sought to introduce his 2022 income tax return as fresh evidence to show a dramatically reduced income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

The court also dismissed the motion to set aside the security for costs order, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The appellant tenant appealed three eviction orders and a review order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent and committing illegal acts.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding he committed illegal acts because he was acquitted of the related criminal charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applies a different standard of proof and is permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict for illegal acts without a criminal conviction.

The court found no errors of law in the Board's assessment of the evidence, its refusal to grant relief from eviction, or its procedural fairness.

The appellant developer constructed three apartment towers and subsequently registered a condominium plan converting two towers into 330 condominium units.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) issued an omitted assessment for the original property, and later issued 331 omitted assessments for the newly created condo units and the remaining multi-residential tower.

The appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board, arguing MPAC lacked authority under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act because the physical land had already been assessed.

The Board upheld the assessments, finding the condominium registration created new legal parcels of land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the developer's appeal, holding that the Board correctly interpreted 'land' and did not breach procedural fairness.

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

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 brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against an anaesthesiologist.

The applicant alleged the doctor's inadequate care during her spouse's surgery contributed to his severe dementia and death, and claimed the subsequent investigation was inadequate and medical records were falsified.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding HPARB's conclusions that the investigation was adequate and the decision was reasonable were both reasonable, and finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant subcontractor sought judicial review of an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act dismissing its claim for unpaid invoices.

The adjudicator had dismissed the claim on the basis that the contractor's invoices to the owner were not 'proper invoices', an issue neither party had raised or made submissions on.

The Divisional Court held that deciding the case on an unraised issue without allowing submissions was a breach of procedural fairness.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the adjudicator.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the respondent.

The moving party landlords brought a motion in writing to lift the stay of an eviction order pending the tenants' appeal.

The court had previously directed the tenants to pay $6,000 per month towards rental arrears, which stood at $41,500, as a condition of the stay.

The tenants failed to make the January 1, 2024 payment and did not respond to the motion.

The court found it in the interests of justice to lift the stay due to the breach and the significant arrears.

The landlords' request to quash the appeal was denied pending further submissions.

The tenants were ordered to pay $500 in costs.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for over a year and breached a court-ordered stay condition requiring ongoing payments.

Applying the Enbridge Gas test, the court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant failed to demonstrate a continuing intent to appeal, raised no meritorious questions of law, and caused ongoing prejudice to the landlord.

The stay of eviction was lifted.