Thomas R. Lederer

The appellant appealed an order requiring her to reimburse the respondent for half of a child support overpayment.

The motion judge had found both parties at fault for the overpayment and split the responsibility equally.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's decision.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award finding it had violated a collective agreement by ceasing to produce engine blocks at its Windsor plant.

The arbitrator had interpreted a 'sole source' clause in a Memorandum of Settlement, concluding the employer could not move the work simply because production volumes fell below projections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable, properly considered the context of the negotiations, and did not violate the parol evidence rule.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated November 18, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs to the responding parties in the all-inclusive amount of $7,500.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Shaw J. on September 14, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $1,500.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ordering the College to register the respondent as a psychological associate.

The respondent had completed an online master's degree, which the College's Registration Committee found did not meet the resident study requirement and was not substantially similar.

The Board found the Committee acted improperly by not following the Board's prior recommendation that the program was substantially similar.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the Board's recommendation and that the Board erred in finding an improper exercise of power.

The matter was remitted to a newly constituted panel of the Registration Committee.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal and the motion for leave to appeal itself.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the underlying order.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Speyer J. dated October 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,825.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outlines were provided.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed by the parties, the court made no order as to costs.

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

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant requested a two-week adjournment.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that the date was peremptory, previous adjournment requests had been denied, and the appellant had failed to comply with directions to file materials despite numerous accommodations.

As the appellants filed no materials to support their appeal, the appeal was dismissed.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted, with eviction delayed until May 1, 2022, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the landlord.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal zoning by-law that added a motor vehicle service station as a permitted use on the respondent's property.

The application was brought more than four years after the by-law was enacted.

The applicant argued that the municipality failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed amendment, denying it the right to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application due to the significant delay, finding that the municipality had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that the delay caused prejudice to the respondents who had relied on the by-law.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated November 16, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,217.88.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed a discipline committee decision finding she engaged in a concurrent sexual relationship with a client, which resulted in the mandatory revocation of her certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair due to an inadequate investigation, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and failure to enforce a witness exclusion order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, noting the committee's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and concluding the appellant failed to establish any palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which overturned an Arbitrator's finding that he suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been involved in two accidents in 2002.

The Director's Delegate found that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired before the 2013 accident and that the Arbitrator erred by applying the material contribution test instead of the 'but for' test.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Director's Delegate's decision unreasonable because it relied on an unestablished fact that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired.

The Court also held that the Arbitrator's use of the material contribution test was appropriate in circumstances involving multiple accidents where it is impossible to determine which accident caused the impairment.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The ICRC had required the applicant to appear for a caution and submit a reflective essay following a complaint from a female patient regarding an inappropriate comment made during a pelvic examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the ICRC's investigation and the reasonableness of its remedial disposition were transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

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

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 responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The defendants and plaintiffs both brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding the admissibility of evidence in a civil contempt proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on four issues concerning the application of sections 7 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to evidence compelled pursuant to a Mareva order and undertakings.

The court directed that the defendant be the appellant and the plaintiffs be the cross-appellants.