Stephen E. Firestone

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.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order dated April 11, 2022.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's (CPSO) disposition of his complaint against a pediatric hepatologist.

The applicant alleged the physician provided inadequate care to his son, who died shortly after being discharged from the hospital, and falsified medical records.

The CPSO's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) investigated and ordered the physician to be cautioned regarding record-keeping and sepsis assessment, but declined to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions were reasonable, free of bias, and supported by adequate reasons.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the leave motion to be determined by the hearing panel.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.

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

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,500 all-inclusive.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from an arbitration award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act arising from the breakdown of a purchase agreement for a new build home.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court panel directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the Arbitration Act, 1991 requires leave to appeal or limits the appeal to issues of law.

The appellant appealed an arbitration and cost award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court raised preliminary questions regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether leave to appeal was required under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court adjourned the hearing and directed the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional issues.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her ongoing income replacement and psychological benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued she was denied procedural fairness because the insurer's psychological expert did not produce raw test data until mid-hearing, and that the LAT erred in finding the insurer made 'best efforts' to produce the file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the data during a five-week adjournment and cross-examine the expert.

The Court also found the LAT applied the correct legal test for 'best efforts'.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $2,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated November 22, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order granting summary judgment to the respondent bank for a credit card debt.

The appellant argued that the bank's failure to provide a signed account agreement was fatal to its claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, as the appellant had received and not disputed monthly credit card statements setting out the debts and interest rates over many years.

The applicant brought an application for expanded access to the digital recording of his trial.

The court conducted a scheduling hearing and set the application to be heard on December 21, 2021, along with deadlines for written submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding vacation deductions for a police officer on a gradual return to work program.

The officer worked half-shifts and received WSIB benefits for the remainder.

When taking vacation, the employer deducted full days from his vacation bank.

The arbitrator found this did not violate the collective agreement, as the officer received his full vacation entitlement and WSIB benefits without losing any benefits.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant municipality appealed an interlocutory order that set aside a consent dismissal of an action and consolidated it with another ongoing action.

The parties had previously agreed to settle the action, but a dispute arose over the specific wording of the release regarding the respondent's ability to call evidence in the ongoing action.

The motion judge found the settlement was contingent on the respondent agreeing to the release terms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error as the essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon and the proposed release accurately reflected those terms.

The settlement was enforced and the consent dismissal reinstated.

The tenant appellants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy.

They argued the Board erred in law and denied them procedural fairness.

At the hearing, the appellants' counsel advised that the transcripts of the Board hearings had just been received but were not yet filed with the court.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, finding that the transcripts were necessary to fairly determine the procedural fairness issues raised.

A case conference was directed to fix an expedited return date.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to transfer a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision from Brampton to Toronto.

The collision occurred in Toronto, the plaintiff resides and sustained damages in Toronto, and two other related actions were already commenced in Toronto.

Applying the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the plaintiff met the onus of demonstrating that a transfer was in the interest of justice.

The motion was granted.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to or refuse treatment with antipsychotic medication.

Due to the appellant's failure to perfect the appeal, the respondent requested the appointment of an amicus curiae.

The court granted the request and appointed an amicus curiae pursuant to Rule 13.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent jurisdiction.