Stephen E. Firestone

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Verner J. dated February 27, 2023.

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

The Appellant, Nodebe Agbapu, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication.

The Respondent, Dr. Tariq Munshi, brought a motion for the appointment of amicus curiae to assist the court, as the self-represented Appellant had not taken steps to perfect the appeal.

The court granted the motion, appointing Jennifer Danch as amicus curiae, finding it appropriate and necessary in the interest of justice to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay rent arrears for a basement unit.

He argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the lease was part of a larger commercial transaction and he never lived in the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of s. 202(1) of the Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction.

The court noted the appellant voluntarily entered into a residential lease to avoid paying HST and could not resile from it when convenient.

This endorsement arises from an appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

Respondent's counsel requested the appointment of amicus curiae, which the appellant opposed.

The Civil Practice Court Judge directed that this request be brought by way of motion.

The endorsement confirms this direction, ordering the motion to be brought in writing before the Regional Senior Justice.

The plaintiff, a federal penitentiary warden, commenced a civil action against a subordinate employee for defamation and harassment.

The defendant moved to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under section 236 of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act because the matter was a workplace dispute subject to the statutory grievance process.

The motion judge allowed the action to proceed against the individual defendant and added the Attorney General as a party.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the broad scope of the grievance process ousted the court's jurisdiction over both the Crown and the individual employee.

The appeal was granted and the action dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The court had previously raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

After reviewing additional materials filed by the parties, the court concluded the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file an amended factum over the respondent's objection, and set a schedule for further filings.

The appellants, a pub owner and his business, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board that confirmed a public health order issued against them.

The medical officer of health had ordered the pub to comply with COVID-19 regulations, including mask and vaccine mandates, or close.

The appellants openly defied the order, leading to a restraining order and the changing of the pub's locks.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no merit to the appellants' arguments, including their reliance on the federal Canadian Bill of Rights, and held that the Board did not err in its interpretation and application of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to transfer the action from Newmarket (Central East Region) to the Toronto Region.

The court reviewed the motion record and applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the interests of justice favoured the transfer so that the matter could be heard on the Commercial List in accordance with a prior judicial direction, the court granted the order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer the action from Ottawa to Toronto.

The court dismissed the motion without costs, noting that a prior order had already transferred the action to Toronto and there was no evidence the order had been set aside or varied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding she breached a settlement agreement and ordering her to repay $15,216.00 to the respondent.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the conclusion that the applicant breached the settlement by advancing resolved claims in a civil action was manifestly reasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Shortly before the hearing, the self-represented respondent advised the court that she wished to respond to the appeal in French and be addressed in French.

The panel adjourned the matter to be heard on the merits by a bilingual panel in the interests of justice.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Shortly before the hearing, the self-represented respondent requested to respond to the appeal in French and to be addressed in French.

The Divisional Court adjourned the matter to be heard on the merits by a bilingual panel in the interests of justice.

At the outset of a judicial review, the Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board under the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court directed that this preliminary issue be determined prior to the hearing on the merits and adjourned the matter for submissions.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee penalty decision that suspended a veterinarian's licence for eight months for professional misconduct involving workplace abuse and altering records, arguing the penalty lacked necessary enforcement provisions.

The veterinarian cross-appealed the liability findings, alleging flawed credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings and concluding the penalty imposed was not clearly unfit or unreasonable.

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding a new build home purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act applies because the Tarion Addendum constitutes an arbitration agreement that is silent on appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal is required and the appeal is strictly limited to questions of law.

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Arbitration Act applied because the Tarion Addendum constituted an arbitration agreement that did not specify appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal was required and the appeal was strictly limited to questions of law.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 22, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Corthorn J. dated May 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding physicians and hospital.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the agreed-upon amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Doi J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500 inclusive.