Thomas R. Lederer

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated June 7, 2022.

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

The applicant, a non-Catholic student at a Catholic high school, challenged a school board policy requiring student trustees to be Roman Catholic.

The Divisional Court held that the policy was not protected by the denominational school rights in s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because the role of student trustee did not exist at Confederation and does not involve governance.

The court found the policy violated the equality rights of non-Catholic students under s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

Furthermore, the policy was found to be ultra vires the school board as it conflicted with provincial regulations.

The policy was quashed.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing an arbitral award made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).

The appellant argued that the respondent had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court by commencing an action there before pursuing arbitration, and that he had not received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent unequivocally abandoned the right to arbitrate, and confirming that the record supported the application judge's finding that proper notice was given.

The landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant for seriously impairing safety by covering smoke detectors.

The LTB issued an eviction order following a hearing the tenant did not attend.

The tenant's request for review was dismissed.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, it was revealed that the LTB had no record confirming service of the Notice of Hearing on the parties.

The court found the tenant was denied procedural fairness, allowed the appeal, and set aside the eviction order.

Given the tenant's failure to pay rent since 2019, the court directed the LTB to hold an expedited consolidated hearing for all pending applications between the parties.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The third parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated May 13, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, payable within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 23, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded no costs.

The court noted that it reached its decision without reference to non-compliant materials filed by the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of André J. dated April 29, 2022.

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

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal council resolution directing staff to proceed with the development of an arena/event centre.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, arguing that a staff update report failed to include requested information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct by the council.

The court also noted that while an alternative statutory remedy existed under the Municipal Act, it exercised its discretion to hear the judicial review to avoid further delay in the long-standing planning process.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Czutrin J. dated January 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Krawchenko J. dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, 1350057 Ontario Ltd.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 9, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

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

The appellant appealed an arbitration award to the Divisional Court.

The court determined that under the Arbitration Act, 1991, jurisdiction over the appeal lies with the Superior Court of Justice, not the Divisional Court.

Finding the jurisdictional error to be an oversight, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto without costs.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for allegedly threatening another tenant.

The landlord did not oppose the appeal, provided no costs were ordered against it.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted panel of the Board.

The Court declined to award costs to the appellant, noting that self-represented litigants are only entitled to costs if they can demonstrate a lost opportunity to earn income, which the appellant failed to do.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision quashing her application for judicial review against the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP).

The applicant sought survivor benefits following the death of a plan member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the finding that HOOPP is a private pension plan not exercising a statutory power or state authority, and therefore its decisions are not subject to judicial review.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision not to apply issue estoppel or in the costs award.