Thomas R. Lederer

The applicant sought leave to appeal orders that dismissed its cross-motion requiring the respondent to post the amount of a foreign arbitral award and ordered the applicant to post security for costs.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the application judge's decision because it failed to consider Article 36 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, which governs the grounds for refusing recognition of an award and the specific circumstances for ordering security for costs.

The court noted the matter's importance to international comity.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The appellants appealed an urgent Commercial Court order that set a date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting, appointed an independent chair, and restrained directors opposing the requisition from voting shares issued to them after the requisition date.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to make an explicit finding of impropriety regarding the share issuance and failed to apply the business judgment rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's reasons were sufficient when read in context, as they clearly demonstrated concern that the shares were issued to dilute the requisitioning shareholders' voting power.

The court also held the application judge properly declined to apply the business judgment rule, as the directors' actions were not in the best interests of the company.

The applicants sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying them intervener status in a labour grievance between a union and an employer regarding alleged subcontracting violations.

The applicants argued the grievance would adversely affect their ability to work and supply workers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the applicants lacked a direct and legal interest in the private dispute resolution process between the union and the employer.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by applying the 'Clergy principle' to allow the respondent's planning applications to be assessed under the policy regime in place when they were originally filed in 1990.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Clergy principle is a procedural policy choice within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, not a legal principle subject to appeal on a question of law.

The Court also found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The appellant, a defendant in a defamation action, appealed a motions judge's decision refusing her leave to amend her statement of defence.

The motions judge had found the proposed amendments were properly pleaded and caused no prejudice, but concluded the motion itself was an abuse of process because the appellant had previously sought broad disclosure without particularizing her defence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 26 is broadly permissive and the motion to amend was not an abuse of process, as the amendments were integral to the defence and caused no prejudice.

The court permitted the amendments but upheld the motions judge's adverse costs award against the appellant for her prior litigation conduct.

The appellant architect appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects finding him guilty of professional misconduct for practicing architecture through an unlicensed service corporation.

The core issue was whether pre-building-permit drawings prepared by the corporation constituted a 'design' intended to govern the construction of a building under the Architects Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Committee's conclusion that the drawings were intended to exert a controlling influence on the construction of the hotel.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court issued an amended endorsement to reflect that the moving parties were represented by counsel, as a Notice of Change of Lawyer had been filed but not uploaded to Caselines.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,195.

The moving party, Facca Incorporated, brought a motion for leave to appeal a November 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the third party, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, payable by the moving party.

No costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff as no costs submissions were received.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief Electoral Officer to refer complaints to the Attorney General as apparent contraventions of the Elections Finances Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision did not affect the legal rights, interests, property, privileges, or liberty of any person.

Applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in PC Ontario Fund, the court held the decision was not susceptible to judicial review and did not engage section 2(b) Charter rights.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order previously issued by the lower court.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were ordered payable to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving party defendant 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 plaintiffs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions that allowed a disabled employee to elect to receive severance pay under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employee, who could no longer perform his job due to a workplace injury, was entitled to elect severance because no other job had been offered to him, meaning no job was 'available'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and her conclusion that a job must be offered to be considered available were reasonable.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a costs order of $12,482.49 made against it on a motion for state funding brought by the respondent mother.

The motion judge had found the Society acted unreasonably in opposing the motion and failing to accept an offer to settle.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the costs award, finding that while the Society did oppose the motion on the merits, taking a position on the merits of an appeal is consistent with its statutory mandate and does not amount to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs award against a child protection agency.

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 self-represented applicant failed to serve and file his motion record and factum for two motions for leave to appeal by the deadline set in a case management endorsement.

The respondent brought motions to dismiss the leave motions for delay under Rule 61.13(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court directed the motions to the Registrar to issue orders dismissing the motions for leave to appeal for delay, with costs of $750 per motion awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The entitlement to costs of the motion was reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, with the quantum fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought motions for an extension of time and leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.