Thomas R. Lederer

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court reviewed the moving party's materials and found that leave might be warranted on a single ground: whether the motion judge erred in awarding costs to the self-represented responding party without evidence that she forewent remunerative activity, contrary to Fong v. Chan.

The responding party was granted an opportunity to respond to this issue, while leave on all other grounds was denied.

The moving parties, Project Spokane, LLC and Sean Walsh, brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 8, 2020 order of Conway J. in a bankruptcy proceeding.

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

The defendants moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for a stay on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting that an order dismissing a jurisdiction motion for a stay is a final order.

Final orders of the Superior Court of Justice must be appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, not the Divisional Court.

The moving party sought leave to adduce fresh evidence and leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The appellant sought leave under section 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action and file pleadings on behalf of a corporation in an ongoing shareholder dispute.

The application judge refused leave, finding that the proposed action would not benefit the corporation and that the appellant was not acting in good faith due to a conflict of interest.

On appeal, the Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs.

The court had initially ordered no costs because the respondents had not filed costs outlines.

The respondents subsequently contacted the court to request costs, arguing they had uploaded a bill of costs late or should be allowed to make submissions after the decision.

The Divisional Court declined to amend its order, noting that the scheduling direction clearly required all costs materials to be uploaded by a specific date, consistent with the court's practice direction.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the Assessment Review Board's decisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the Board breached the moving party's procedural fairness rights.

The respondent and the Board took no position on the motion, and no costs were ordered.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,744.26.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision to strike their jury notice due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Divisional Court refused leave, finding that the motion judge properly exercised their discretion in balancing the increased uncertainty of civil jury trials against the significant financial prejudice to the plaintiffs, who required extensive attendant care.

The court applied the recent framework from Louis v. Poitras and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made as the responding parties did not file costs outlines.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal three orders made by Faieta J. and J. Wilson J. in July and August 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $7,500.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to strike their jury notices in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices solely due to anticipated delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, without relying on specific evidence regarding the length of the delay or its impact on the parties or the administration of justice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while delay and the pandemic's impact on the administration of justice are valid considerations, striking a jury notice based on a general assertion of delay without specific, localized evidence is arbitrary.

The appeal was granted without prejudice to the plaintiffs renewing the motion with proper evidence.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB ordered eviction based on the tenants' failure to pay their share of utilities, which the LTB found substantially interfered with the landlords' rights.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they complained to the municipality about heating issues.

The Divisional Court found the LTB erred in law by failing to consider the tenants' retaliation argument under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act and by failing to consider whether to refuse the eviction on conditions under s. 83(1).

The appeal was granted in part and remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reinstating a railway conductor who was terminated following a positive urine test for marijuana.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably excluded an expert report on marijuana impairment tendered eight days before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably exercised his discretion to exclude the late report to protect the integrity and fairness of the expedited arbitration process.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that a positive urine test, without corroborating evidence of impairment, did not establish a violation of the employer's drug policy.

The appellants, a group of telecommunications carriers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that increased the province-wide default price for attaching cables to electricity poles.

The appellants argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by conducting a policy review rather than holding a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was not statutorily required to hold a hearing under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and that the policy review process adopted by the Board was procedurally fair and entitled to deference.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application for bad faith eviction under s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board found the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period in s. 57(2).

The appellants argued the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act should apply, as they only discovered the bad faith eviction months after vacating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 57(2) of the RTA prevails over the Limitations Act and that the discoverability rule does not apply when a limitation period runs from a precise event, such as vacating a rental unit.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The injunction sought to prohibit the respondent from challenging the validity of the appellants' U.S. patent, relying on a 'no-challenge' clause in a prior settlement agreement.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion, finding no strong prima facie case because the clause was deemed contrary to public policy based on U.S. case law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the agreement and in applying U.S. law over Canadian law, which upholds such clauses in litigation settlements.

The Court found a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the appellants, granting the injunction.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a jointly owned property rather than its partition.

Following the commencement of the appeal, the appellants sold their interest in the property to the respondent for $3,900,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the issues raised were not elusive of review and did not warrant the expenditure of judicial resources.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Integrity Commissioner's refusal to issue public determinations regarding the conduct of several public servants under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked public interest standing because the statutory scheme does not include a public complaints mechanism and is strictly employment-oriented.

The court also held that the application did not raise a justiciable issue, as the Commissioner's functions under the Act relate to private employment relationships and do not involve the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order approving the forms of release proposed by the respondents to finalize an estate settlement.

The parties had previously reached a settlement agreement regarding the distribution of the estate, but could not agree on the terms of the releases.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors and correctly applied the principle that settlement implies a promise to furnish a release.

The court also denied leave to appeal the costs order, noting it was made on consent, and awarded the respondents $5,000 in costs for the appeal.