Susan E. Greer

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking contribution to retroactive and ongoing special or extraordinary expenses for a child attending university, as well as continuation of child support.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines and relevant case law governing retroactive section 7 claims, including factors such as the child's need, the parties’ financial circumstances, and delay in bringing the request.

The court declined to order retroactive payment of all historical post-secondary expenses but ordered the respondent father to contribute proportionately to the child’s section 7 expenses for the 2012 academic year.

Child support was also extended briefly beyond the anticipated graduation date to allow the child to transition into employment.

The plaintiff invested in a property with the defendant Esmail, creating a trust relationship.

Esmail failed to keep proper accounts, transferred the property to his wife Yasmin to defeat creditors, and eventually sold the property without properly accounting to the plaintiff.

The solicitor acting on the sale, Jiwa, ignored the trust declaration and failed to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The court found Esmail and Yasmin liable for breach of trust and fiduciary duty, and Jiwa liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding damages to the plaintiff.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal, which was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented applicant opposed the costs, arguing they should be reserved to the trial judge and claiming protection under section 15 of the Charter.

The court found the Charter inapplicable to costs orders and fixed the respondent's costs at $2,832.38, payable out of the applicant's interest in the estate upon final distribution.

The appellant physician moved for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) that confirmed the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant did not maintain a firm intention to appeal within the prescribed time limit, failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

Furthermore, granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent hospital, which had already moved forward with staffing and budgeting decisions.

The defendant developer moved for leave to appeal a motions judge's decision refusing to strike or stay an action brought by an individual condominium unit owner.

The unit owner sought damages for construction deficiencies, including to common elements.

The condominium corporation had already commenced a separate action on behalf of all owners for common element deficiencies.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions on whether an individual owner can maintain a separate action for common element deficiencies without opting out of the corporation's action, and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy and 'closure campaign' against their sleep clinics.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by statutory immunity under the Independent Health Facilities Act and constituted an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the pleadings were sufficient and the claims were not clearly barred by immunity.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that transferred the action's venue from Toronto to Belleville and required the plaintiffs to pay consulting fees into court pursuant to a security agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions on the venue transfer and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of section 67 of the Personal Property Security Act.

The court held that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment regarding property damage caused by the defendants' construction.

The motions judge had dismissed the summary judgment motion with a one-sentence endorsement citing 'numerous conflicts in the evidence' without further explanation.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to the inadequacy of the reasons provided and the failure to apply the newly amended Rule 20 for summary judgments.

The defendant bank sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of its retail branch employees.

The bank argued that the certification decision conflicted with another recent decision denying certification in a similar overtime class action against a different bank, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on both grounds, finding a clear conflict in principle regarding whether systemic duties and implied contractual terms could overcome a lack of commonality, and noting the general public importance of the issues raised.

The self-represented applicant moved for leave to appeal an interim order that found she had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting her former counsel's advice and conduct in issue in her motion to set aside an estate settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant leave.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his motion to add himself, in his capacity as Estate Trustee, as a plaintiff in his personal action against the respondent.

The Master had ruled the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in calculating the limitation period.

The court held that the limitation period was extended because the parties had engaged in mediation and because the respondent had delayed renouncing her right to act as Estate Trustee, which prevented the appellant from being appointed earlier.

Following a motion for leave to appeal and a successful motion by the plaintiffs to exclude fresh evidence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The parties agreed that costs of the motion for leave should be left to the panel hearing the appeal.

For the motion to exclude fresh evidence, the court rejected the defendants' argument that a separate motion was unnecessary, noting the defendants attempted to introduce the same documents previously refused.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $765.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) appealed a costs award made against it for failing to pay out a surplus of funds accumulated under a family court support order.

The motion judge had found FRO's retention of the funds unreasonable and contrary to its statutory duties.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that FRO was not a party to the proceedings and therefore could not be subject to a costs award under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the court found that FRO's policy of not paying out surplus funds without a court order was not unreasonable.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $7,826.83 inclusive of GST and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the history and circumstances of the litigation.

The Attorney General for Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order certifying a class action against the Crown regarding allegedly defective medical implants.

The Crown argued that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for regulatory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions on the matter and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's application of the Anns test for duty of care.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to amend their statement of defence and granted the respondent's cross-motion for judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by hearing the final cross-motion before the interlocutory motion to amend.

The Court also held that the Master applied the incorrect test under Rule 26 by reversing the onus, as the opposing party must prove non-compensable prejudice to defeat a motion to amend.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeals against the City's official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the redevelopment of a hospital site.

The moving party opposed the demolition of the old hospital building, raising environmental, affordable housing, and heritage preservation concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any of the raised issues.

Following a successful appeal by the condominium corporation that dismissed the respondent's Small Claims Court action regarding a special assessment, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The appellant sought over $52,000 in costs on a claim worth $5,350.29.

The court rejected the application of the condominium declaration for substantial indemnity costs because the respondent had sold her unit before suing.

The court also held that Rule 49.10 does not apply to offers made pending an appeal.

Emphasizing proportionality, the court limited the Small Claims Court costs to the statutory 15% maximum plus disbursements, and fixed the appeal costs at $3,000 plus disbursements, for a total award of $7,452.73.

The applicant sought a stay of a Board order revoking its liquor licence pending an appeal.

The Board had revoked the licence after finding the applicant allowed drug sales and drunkenness on the premises.

The applicant argued it should have been allowed to introduce fresh evidence at the Board hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to meet the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, particularly failing to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to set aside service outside Ontario and permanently stay the action on the basis that Ontario was not the forum conveniens.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for a Master's decision on forum conveniens is correctness, as it is vital to the final disposition of the lawsuit.

Applying this standard, the Court upheld the Master's finding that Ontario was the appropriate forum, noting the plaintiff's central location and the lack of evidence showing another jurisdiction was clearly more appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.