Shaun O'Brien

The respondent landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of eviction pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had previously been ordered to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of the stay but failed to make any payments.

The tenant did not provide substantive submissions in response to the motion.

The court lifted the stay of eviction and awarded costs of $1,600 to the landlord.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated January 2, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 31, 2024.

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 responding parties.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Akazaki J., along with motions to extend time and for a stay/injunction pending appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal based on the materials filed, rendering the other motions moot.

The court noted, however, that it did not agree with the lower court's finding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an urgent motion before a proceeding is commenced, citing Rule 37.17 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent leave to bring a derivative action.

The appellants argued the motions judge applied the wrong burden of proof regarding good faith, erred in finding the action was in the corporation's best interest, and failed to consider whether an oppression remedy was more appropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's factual findings on good faith and the corporation's best interests.

The court also declined to consider the oppression remedy argument as it was not raised before the motions judge.

The appellant appealed Landlord and Tenant Board orders finding he was not a member of the respondent housing co-operative and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had previously resigned his membership and his ex-spouse, the remaining member, had abandoned the unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal solely on the basis that the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict an unauthorized occupant (non-member) from a co-op, a point conceded by the respondent.

The appellant's other grounds of appeal, including claims regarding notice, membership status, and standing to challenge his ex-spouse's eviction, were dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision regarding a developer's site plan application.

The Tribunal had found the application complete despite the developer failing to attend a mandatory pre-application consultation.

The court granted the extension, finding the moving party's delay was short and adequately explained by its initial attempt to seek leave to appeal, and that the proposed application raised apparent grounds for relief that should be determined by a panel.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for delay and non-compliance with court directions.

The tenant had previously been granted an extension of time to appeal on the condition of making monthly payments.

The court found that the tenant had substantially complied with the directions, including making the required payments and taking steps to obtain transcripts.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hassan J. dated January 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

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 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 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 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 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 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.