W. Danial Newton

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of his application for registration as a Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner and Acupuncturist.

The appellant had failed the required prior learning assessment process (PLAR) case study assessment twice.

On appeal, he argued the Board erred in denying his request for an adjournment and in finding he did not meet the registration requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision to deny the adjournment or its reliance on the PLAR competency assessments.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which found that the employer's labour relations were provincially regulated and allowed the union's certification applications to proceed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The Court held that absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present here, administrative proceedings should not be fragmented by reviewing preliminary constitutional or jurisdictional issues before a final decision on the merits.

The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to an in-person hearing on March 1, 2023, making the date peremptory on the appellant, with or without counsel.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated October 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated September 27, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 14, 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 applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion for a penalty after the respondent estate trustee was found in contempt for failing to pass accounts as ordered.

Despite being given 60 days to purge his contempt, the respondent failed to do so and only retained counsel two days before the penalty hearing.

Emphasizing the need for deterrence and respect for court orders, the court sentenced the respondent to five days imprisonment, granted an additional 60 days to purge the contempt, and ordered him to pay $2,500 in costs personally.

The moving party appealed a previous order vesting title of his real estate to the respondent estate and sought a stay of any sale of the property pending the appeal.

The parties consented to a stay until June 15, 2023, but disagreed on whether it should continue until the appeal's disposition if no decision was made by that date.

Applying the three-part test for an injunction, the court found a serious issue to be tried, potential irreparable harm if the property was sold, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The court ordered the stay to continue until the disposition of the appeal.

This decision addresses the final stage of a highly contentious estate dispute, focusing on the passing of accounts, discharge of estate trustees, and unequal distribution of estate proceeds.

The applicants, Lee Swearengen and Linda Arp, sought approval of their accounts and discharge, along with an unequal distribution of the estate due to the respondents' (Patricia Aho and Jerry Swearengen) conduct.

The court approved the estate trustees' accounts, including their compensation and legal fees, finding the objections by the respondents to be without merit and unduly protracted.

The court also ordered an unequal distribution, significantly reducing Jerry Swearengen's share due to his outstanding costs awards, share of estate expenses, and legal expenses incurred due to his conduct.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter to stay charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 53 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of the preliminary hearing judge, the net delay was calculated at 35 months and 21 days.

As this exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling and the case was not particularly complex, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement following the stabbing death of his brother's common-law partner.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of three highly intoxicated witnesses, which contained inconsistencies.

The court accepted the evidence that the accused had a knife, threatened the occupants, and fled the scene before police arrived.

Applying the test for circumstantial evidence, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the accused stabbed the victim and had the requisite intent for murder despite his intoxication.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

The father brought a motion to set aside a previous order granting the mother retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, which was made after he failed to appear.

The father claimed he was out of town and did not receive notice, but the mother provided evidence of service and communication.

The court dismissed the father's motion, noting his ongoing failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations and his admission that he would not comply with court orders until granted parenting time.

The father was permitted to bring a motion to change the order only after providing the required financial disclosure.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of an alternate suspect and inadequate police investigation.

The defence sought to cross-examine police officers about information they received regarding another individual who allegedly had a motive and recent violent encounter with the victim, but whom police failed to investigate.

The court allowed the application, finding there was an air of reality to the alternate suspect theory and that the proposed evidence was relevant to the adequacy of the police investigation.

The mother brought an uncontested motion seeking reimbursement for section 7 medical, dental, and recreational expenses, as well as an order for table child support.

The father failed to appear and failed to comply with previous financial disclosure orders.

The court imputed the father's income at $140,000, ordered him to pay the requested section 7 expenses, and ordered retroactive monthly child support of $1,960.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to continue an action against his former lawyer for alleged negligence in civil and criminal matters.

The court applied the test for granting leave, which requires the applicant to show the proceeding is not an abuse of process and has reasonable grounds.

The court found that the alleged negligence in the civil matter did not alter the fact that the underlying action was an abuse of process, and the alleged failure to retain an expert in the criminal matter would not have changed the conviction.

The application for leave was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the self-represented respondent's affidavit after she failed to provide a witness list for trial as previously ordered.

The respondent offered no valid explanation for her non-compliance, asserting only that the applicant would interfere with her witnesses, and stated she would proceed on her own.

The court declined to strike the affidavit but directed the trial of an issue to proceed with strict time limits and a condition that the respondent may testify but cannot call any other witnesses.

The Crown applied for an order remanding the offender for an assessment for a dangerous or long-term offender application following his conviction for aggravated assault against a fellow inmate.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal record, including youth convictions, intimate partner violence, and a manslaughter conviction.

The court found that the threshold for ordering an assessment, while low, was not met, as the offender's past behaviour did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal for delay, and the respondent brought a cross-motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal.

The respondent was appealing a summary judgment order that found the child in need of protection, placed the child in extended society care, and denied her access.

The court applied the test for extending time to perfect an appeal and found that the respondent provided no explanation for the delay, there was prejudice to the child in further delay, and the evidentiary record supported the motion judge's conclusions.

The respondent's motion to extend time was dismissed, and the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal for delay was granted.