Susan E. Lang

The appellant grandparents appealed a summary judgment order that granted them access to their grandchildren at the discretion of the respondent parents.

The grandparents, who were self-represented at the motion, argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge struck an appropriate balance and afforded the grandfather ample time to present his case.

The court also upheld the summary judgment, applying the principle from Chapman v. Chapman that parents have the right to decide whom their children see, absent evidence they are not acting in the children's best interests.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments for a shopping mall for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to use a recent arm's length sale price as the best evidence of market value, and by applying a 'current value' approach rather than a 'market value' approach.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's treatment of the recent sale was a question of mixed fact and law and thus not appealable.

However, the Court found the Board erred in law by applying a 'current value' (unencumbered fee simple) approach, which was introduced by 1997 amendments not applicable to the years in question.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination based on the correct 'market value' test.

The applicants sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision finding them liable as related employers for termination and severance pay owed to employees of a related business under the Employment Standards Act.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's decision.

The Court found that the adjudicator reasonably applied the established criteria for related employer liability, noting the applicants' significant financial and operational control over the related business.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

EGALE Canada Inc. moved for intervenor status as an added party in an application brought by same-sex couples seeking marriage licences.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the motion.

The court granted EGALE intervenor status under Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that EGALE had a direct interest in the subject matter and could make a useful contribution by providing a different perspective from the applicants, specifically regarding relationship options and national context.

To prevent undue delay and prejudice, the court imposed strict conditions on EGALE's participation, limiting its evidence and cross-examination to its unique perspectives.

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating their tenancy and ordering vacant possession.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal or lift the stay pending appeal.

The tenants were represented by a paralegal.

The court held that paralegals are not authorized by law to represent parties in court on residential tenancy matters, including excess claims and appeals, as the Rules of Civil Procedure apply and the Law Society Act prohibits non-lawyers from practising law.

The court lifted the stay regarding the payment of rent but maintained the stay on the eviction order provided the appeal was heard promptly.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order regarding the calculation of his income and the resulting child support obligations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's calculation of the appellant's income was justified based on the evidence tendered.

The court declined to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion and awarded costs of $2,000 to the respondent.