Thomas R. Lederer

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 28, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $5,000 to the defendants.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order confirming that the jurisdiction of an Estate Trustee During Litigation continues during an appeal of the underlying will challenge claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the phrase 'pending the final disposition' in the appointment order clearly encompasses the appellate process.

The court affirmed the long-standing principle that an estate trustee's duties continue until the litigation is finally completed, including any appeals.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of a Master.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Henderson J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs were requested, no costs were ordered.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to disclose certain information.

He had also brought a separate motion before the motion judge to correct a mistake in the same order pursuant to rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that the leave to appeal motion was premature and adjourned it until the motion to correct the order was decided and finalized.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by a Master.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to void a lease in the context of an oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of s. 249 of the Act, or alternatively, whether the underlying order was final and therefore appealable to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision overturning the transfer of an employee who had previously been disciplined for assaulting a co-worker.

The hospital argued the transfer was an administrative decision to protect the complainant under the Occupational Health & Safety Act.

The arbitrator found the transfer constituted a second penalty for the same offence, violating the principle of double jeopardy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and properly balanced the competing values of workplace safety and protection against double jeopardy.

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 appellants appealed a decision finding them liable for $10,022.33 in damages arising from a water leak in their unoccupied condominium unit.

The condominium corporation charged back the repair costs, which were less than its insurance deductible, pursuant to s. 105 of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 105 does not require a finding of negligence or strict liability, but rather a simple 'but for' causation analysis.

The court found that the appellants' failure to shut off the water during their five-month absence was an omission that caused the damage.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against PayPal.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, place of residence, and citizenship after PayPal refused to issue him a cheque in US dollars upon closing his Canadian account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the essence of the complaint was based on residence, which is not an enumerated ground under the Human Rights Code.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding plaintiff.

The appellant, a 69-year-old legal assistant, was terminated without cause after 15 years of service.

A motions judge awarded her a 12-month notice period, subject to a 10% contingency reduction for the final two months.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, seeking a 24-month notice period and arguing the motions judge erred in applying the Bardal factors and the contingency reduction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle, no unreasonable findings of fact, and that the notice period fell within an acceptable range.

The applicant sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award determining the actual cash value of a resort property destroyed by fire.

The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the depreciation rate, which it claimed the parties had already agreed upon, and breached procedural fairness by not adjourning the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision reasonable as the depreciation rate was clearly in dispute based on the appraisal briefs.

The court also held that the informal appraisal process under section 128 of the Insurance Act was conducted fairly and the respondent's appraiser owed no duty of procedural fairness to the applicant.

The moving party, a veterinarian previously found guilty of professional misconduct, brought three motions seeking reasons from the Complaints Committee, admission of fresh evidence, and a stay of penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction as there was no existing proceeding.

The court also held that the issues raised were res judicata, having been previously decided by the Discipline Committee and the Divisional Court on appeal.

The motions were deemed an abuse of process and dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of a class action concerning medical device implants, the Crown sought over $6.3 million in costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs based on public interest and access to justice principles under the Class Proceedings Act, and sought costs for an unproven fraud allegation against a witness.

The court significantly reduced the Crown's costs to $385,000, noting the public interest nature of the case, the access to justice mandate, and the Crown's own contribution to the 20-year delay.

OHIP was ordered to pay 10% of the costs, with the remainder payable by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

Three appeals were scheduled to be heard regarding whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for statutory accident benefits applications.

The LAT had previously made conflicting decisions on this issue and indicated it did not intend to appear.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeals and ordered the LAT to intervene and file materials to assist the court in determining the jurisdictional issue.