Suzanne M. Stevenson

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union, as well as a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The complaint arose after the union withdrew several of the applicant's grievances related to discipline he received for refusing to sign a training registration form due to privacy concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decisions were justified, intelligible, and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed without costs.

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of J.R. McCarthy J. dated June 10, 2025.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Kimmel J. dated June 18, 2024.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $6,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision of Parghi J. dated July 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The arbitrator found that the respondent nursing home breached the collective agreement by hiring non-unionized agency workers but declined to order any remedy beyond a declaration, citing the home's severe staffing shortages and regulatory obligations.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The court noted that while the situation was problematic, the arbitrator reasonably concluded that other remedies would exacerbate the staffing crisis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal Appeal Committee decision upholding the refusal of a business licence for his night club.

The Divisional Court found that the hearing was procedurally unfair because the municipality's lawyer acted as both counsel and witness, and the applicant was effectively denied the right to present his case.

The court also held the decision was unreasonable as it lacked intelligible reasons explaining why the appeal was denied.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different appeal committee for reconsideration.

The parties, former spouses, owned an apartment building as joint tenants.

Their divorce agreement gave the appellant a right of first refusal to buy out the respondent's interest, contingent on securing financing and escrowing funds for tax liability.

The appellant failed to exercise this right within the 90-day deadline due to a disagreement over the tax calculation.

The respondent successfully applied for the sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the judge misapprehended the dispute as a partition matter rather than a contract dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law and confirming the appellant's right of first refusal had lapsed.

The Applicant sought joint custody and increased parenting time, while the Respondent sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court ordered joint custody, with specific decision-making authority split between the parents for different areas (medical/dental for the mother, education/religion for the father).

The parenting schedule was adjusted to provide the father with additional overnight time, but not the requested week-about schedule.

Child support was set at $125 per month payable by the father to the mother, with section 7 expenses shared equally, based on shared custody guidelines and the parties' current incomes.

The applicant sought an order extending the time to bring a claim for equalization of net family property and to set aside a separation agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that there were no apparent grounds to set aside the separation agreement, that the significant delay in bringing the claim was not incurred in good faith, and that no substantial prejudice would result from the delay.

Consequently, the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment was not addressed.

Following a 17-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and child support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $948,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The court found the applicant was overall more successful but denied full recovery because her offers were not as favourable as the final order on all issues, particularly regarding time-sharing.

Noting that both parties acted unreasonably at times and that the legal fees were completely disproportionate to the issues, the court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $125,000, with $50,000 enforceable as an incident of support.

The applicant sought summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim for a $20,341.98 credit against support payments, which the respondent asserted was due from a prior costs order.

The court found that the costs order was conditional on an equalization payment that was never made due to the respondent's bankruptcy.

Furthermore, any such debt would have vested in the bankruptcy trustee.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the respondent's claim for the credit.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' nine-year-old son, while the respondent father sought joint decision-making and increased parenting time.

The court found that the high level of conflict between the parents necessitated an order for sole custody to the mother, who had been the primary caregiver and had managed the child's significant academic and anxiety challenges.

The father's parenting time was expanded to include alternate weekends.

The court imputed income to the father, who had been voluntarily unemployed since 2010, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court also imposed strict safeguards on the father's ability to travel with the child to France to prevent international abduction.

Following a lengthy motion concerning interim child support, spousal support, and interim costs in a high‑income family law dispute, both parties sought costs.

The court assessed success in light of the motion result and competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

Although the applicant obtained retroactive interim child support, the respondent was found to have been more successful overall because the ordered support was lower than his offer and the applicant’s claims for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

The court considered proportionality, counsel rates, time spent, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Exercising its discretion under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the applicant to pay partial costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought non-time limited spousal support and a lump sum payment to compensate for her lost share of the respondent's pension following his bankruptcy.

The court found the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds following a 15-year traditional marriage.

However, the court imputed a minimum wage income to the applicant, finding she was intentionally unemployed despite physical limitations.

The court ordered periodic spousal support of $2,800 per month indefinitely.

The claim for lump sum spousal support was dismissed because no equalization of net family property had ever occurred, making a lump sum award an improper redistribution of assets.