Stephen E. Firestone

The plaintiff sought to schedule a summary judgment motion in a simplified procedure action concerning an unpaid loan.

The court, following a case conference, exercised its discretion to decline scheduling the motion, emphasizing that summary judgment remains the exception, not the rule, and finding no demonstrable increase in efficiency or cost savings by scheduling such a motion within the existing streamlined simplified procedure framework.

The appellant appealed a case management judge's order permitting the foreign corporate respondent to redact irrelevant personal data from its documentary productions to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR and BDSG).

The Divisional Court upheld the redaction protocol, finding the motion judge had jurisdiction to craft a procedural compromise that balanced Ontario discovery obligations with international comity and foreign privacy laws.

However, the court granted the appeal solely to remove an unwarranted requirement that the respondent obtain leave before filing its affidavit of documents.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in illegal insider trading and tipping regarding Amaya Gaming Group Inc.'s acquisition of PokerStars, and imposing sanctions including market bans and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in relying on circumstantial evidence, misapplying the law on similar fact evidence, and imposing punitive sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's factual findings or inferences, and holding that the sanctions were protective and within the Tribunal's wide discretion.

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order, an order imputing income for child support, a dismissal of his request to change the child's name, and a substantial indemnity costs award of $161,606.69.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in determining the child's best interests, imputing income based on the father's failure to seek employment, or awarding costs based on findings of bad faith and domestic violence.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dubé J. dated October 11, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the self-represented moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Kaufman J. The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The court convened to hear an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the beginning of the hearing, the self-represented respondent requested an adjournment because he had not received the appellant's materials due to technology and mail delivery issues.

The appellant and intervenor did not oppose the request.

The court granted the adjournment and rescheduled the appeal.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perell J. dated December 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacEachern J. dated June 23, 2023.

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

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, emailed the court requesting directions to schedule a motion to set aside the vexatious litigant judgment.

The court noted that the judgment prohibits the moving party from instituting any motion without leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which must be obtained from the case management judge.

The court appointed Justice W. S. Chalmers as the Case Management Judge and directed the moving party to make any requests to him.

The defendants, Turgut Askar and Beck Taxi Ltd., brought a motion to change the trial venue from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff, Leela Rampersad, opposed the motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that Toronto was a "substantially better" venue given the location of the motor vehicle accident, the residences of the parties and most potential witnesses, and the plaintiff's connections to Toronto for employment and medical treatment.

The only connection to Barrie was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he had not suffered a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in her treatment of expert evidence, violated procedural fairness by questioning an expert, misapplied the temporal requirements for assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and used an overly restrictive causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as the adjudicator properly applied a flexible approach to the timing of assessments and correctly considered impairments caused by the traumatic brain injury.

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a full and final settlement of his statutory accident benefits claim, pursuant to Rule 7.08(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court approved the proposed settlement of $450,000, which included a structured component, finding it to be in the best interests of the applicant.

The decision also provided important clarification on the practice of pre-funding structured settlements in escrow, affirming that this process is appropriate and necessary to secure precise payment schedules and does not usurp the court's jurisdiction, as funds remain subject to withdrawal or amendment until final approval.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its certification application.

The OLRB had determined that the respondent's work of relining existing sewer pipes using cured-in-place-pipe was maintenance work, not construction work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OLRB's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its application of its own jurisprudence were internally coherent, rational, and entitled to deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Tribunal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, resulting in the revocation of his licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its credibility assessments, misapplied the concept of incremental disclosure, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's detailed and nuanced credibility findings, which preferred the patient's evidence over the appellant's.

The appellant insurer appealed a preliminary issue decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding whether the respondent's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The LAT intervened to raise a preliminary issue regarding the Divisional Court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, confirming that appeals lie only from final decisions of the LAT to prevent fragmentation and delay.

The court also declined the parties' joint request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,900 all inclusive.