Stephen E. Firestone

The defendants appealed a decision regarding the delivery of expert reports.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted the defendant leave to deliver the expert reports of Dr. Turcotte on causation and Professor Hyatt on damages.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

As agreed by the parties, no costs were ordered.

The appellant estate appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss a solicitor's negligence action for delay.

The defendant solicitor had died unexpectedly during the litigation.

The appellant argued the loss of the solicitor's viva voce evidence caused actual prejudice.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the documentary evidence was sufficient to ensure a fair trial and that the appellant failed to prove actual prejudice.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the motion judge's costs award was also dismissed.

The appellant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a 1999 motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his entitlement to attendant care benefits.

The LAT had awarded a minimal monthly amount, focusing on the care actually provided by his family rather than his need for supervisory care due to his inability to respond to emergencies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test under the 1996 SABS and that the decision was unreasonable.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order discharging and vacating its construction lien.

The motion judge had found that the lien expired prior to perfection because the contract was terminated or abandoned more than 150 days before the certificate of action was registered.

On appeal, the contractor argued the motion judge erred in finding termination or abandonment and improperly used enhanced fact-finding powers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings of termination and abandonment, and concluding that the motion judge correctly applied the evidentiary burden without resorting to enhanced fact-finding powers.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that upheld his misconduct conviction for Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority and ordered a new hearing for a Neglect of Duty charge.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer failed to remove handcuffs from a misidentified suspect after learning they were not the intended target.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OCPC's decision reasonable.

The court upheld the OCPC's dismissal of a fresh evidence motion regarding post-decision communications, found no reversible error in the hearing officer's use of copied precedents, and agreed that the failure to release the misidentified suspect constituted an unlawful arrest.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Tribunal dismissing a recusal motion based on an alleged apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to file the application but ultimately dismissed the judicial review as premature.

The court reaffirmed that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of interlocutory administrative decisions should await the completion of the underlying proceeding, and allegations of bias do not automatically bypass this rule.

The defendant, Klick Inc. dba Klick Health, brought a motion to transfer a wrongful dismissal action from Hamilton (Central South Region) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Danielle Tasson, opposed the motion.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevant Practice Direction, emphasizing a holistic approach.

The court found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable, particularly in light of her childcare needs and residence circumstances, and that the defendant had not established that Toronto was “significantly better.” The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from Sudbury (Northeast Region) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer and brought a cross-motion requesting that, if a transfer was necessary, it should be to Gore Bay in the Northeast Judicial Region.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable.

The defendants did not establish that their proposed venue was significantly better.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the removal of certain bike lanes in Toronto, arguing that the removal would unjustifiably infringe the section 7 Charter rights of cyclists by exposing them to a heightened risk of injury or death.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm was established, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the presumption that legislation serves the public interest.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

The respondent's counsel advised the court of a potential conflict of interest.

The applicants indicated they had no concerns and were content to proceed as scheduled.

Given the parties' positions, the panel directed that the matter would proceed as scheduled.

The court granted a consent motion to transfer a collection action brought by The Toronto-Dominion Bank from London (Middlesex) to Toronto.

The decision reviews the legal principles for change of venue under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for a rational connection between the chosen venue and the subject matter of the proceeding.

The court found that all relevant events, parties, and interests were connected to Toronto, and that London had no rational connection to the dispute.

The decision also addresses the broader issue of forum shopping and its impact on judicial resources.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto, which the plaintiffs had opposed.

The court applied principles from Schreiber v. Mulroney and Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario, considering Rule 57 factors and proportionality.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants partial indemnity costs of $2,980.00.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and principles from *Schreiber v. Mulroney* and *Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario*, ordered the plaintiffs to pay partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and determining that Toronto was a substantially better venue, given that the project, contractual agreement, and all events giving rise to the claim were located in Toronto, as were the parties and their counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, arguing that Toronto was the more appropriate venue.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and that Toronto was a substantially better venue, based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors, including the location of the project, the events giving rise to the claim, and the parties' residences.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a prior decision, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Stewart J. dated June 3, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated June 13, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Sutherland J. dated June 11, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties who appeared, with the amount reduced due to the failure to file a cost outline.