Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Appeals - Leave to Appeal - No Reasons Given

There is firm doctrine in leave to appeal law that the considering court need not give reasons for it's decision.

. Peng v. Chen Estate

In Peng v. Chen Estate (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal notes the general court practice to not issue reasons on leave to appeal motions:

[1] Ms. Peng seeks a review of the order of the motion judge that dismissed her motion to extend the time to file a motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Divisional Court that dismissed her motion for leave to appeal from two costs orders.

[2] Ms. Peng has failed to demonstrate any error in the motion judge’s analysis or conclusion. We agree that the Divisional Court need not provide reasons for refusing leave. This is its usual practice, as it is the usual practice of this court and other appellate courts. Further, the motion judge’s finding that the proposed motion for leave to appeal has no merit is unassailable.

. ARI STC GP INC. v. MPAC

In ARI STC GP INC. v. MPAC (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed two motions for leave to appeal. Here the court repeats it's long-lasting practice of not giving reasons on leave to appeal motions (after which it demonstrates why reasons are sometimes needed):

[4] Consistent with the usual practice in this court, there are no reasons for this decision: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949 (Div. Ct.); County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22, 2022 ONSC 1458 (Div. Ct.).

. South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association v. 1423 Bloor Street West Inc. et al.

In South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association v. 1423 Bloor Street West Inc. et al. (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court stated it's leave to appeal 'reasons' policy:

[2] Consistent with the usual practice in this court, there shall be no reasons for this decision: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949 (Div. Ct.); County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22, 2022 ONSC 1458 (Div. Ct.).

. Marquis Manors Ltd. v. Kennedy

In Marquis Manors Ltd. v. Kennedy (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court cites the policy of the courts not to give reasons for leave to appeal decisions:

[3] The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed. The court does not ordinarily give reasons on motions for leave to appeal. Whether to give reasons is at the discretion of the motion judge, which should be exercised sparingly: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949. In this case, I find it appropriate to give brief reasons for denying leave to appeal.

. Layton v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

In Layton v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03 (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court cited their practice of not giving reasons on leave to appeal motions:

[2] Consistent with the usual practice in this court, there shall be no reasons for this decision: County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22, 2022 ONSC 1458; Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949.

. Shieff v. Toronto (City)

In Shieff v. Toronto (City) (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court stated the court's practice of not giving reasons when deciding leave to appeal motions:

[2] As I explained to Mr Shieff during the hearing, this court does not give reasons for decisions on motions for leave to appeal: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949 (D.L. Corbett J.); Action Champlain c. Colacem Canada Inc., 2021 ONCS 4690 (Boucher J.); Craft Acquisitions Corp. v. P.I.T.S. Development Inc., 2020 ONSC 7174 (Favreau J. (as she then was)). There is no reason to depart from this practice in this case.

. County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22

In County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22 (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court stated the court's practice regarding reasons for leave to appeal decisions:

[2] Consistent with usual practice in this court, there shall be no reasons for this leave decision: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949 (D.L. Corbett J.); ABC Residents Association v. Yonge & Scollard Developments Inc., 2020 ONSC 4280 (D.L. Corbett J.); Action Champlain c. Colacem Canada Inc., 2021 ONCS 4690 (Boucher J.); Craft Acquisitions Corp. v. P.I.T.S. Development Inc., 2020 ONSC 7174 (Favreau J. (as she then was)); HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corp. v. Kingston (City), 2020 ONSC 7048 (Mew J.).

. Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto

In Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court explains why, in case you've ever wondered, you never see reasons for a motion for leave to appeal - good to know:

[2] This court does not ordinarily give reasons on motions for leave to appeal, mirroring the practice in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada: Lokhandwala v. Khan, 2019 ONSC 6346. The court’s practice not to give reasons when granting or refusing leave to appeal is rooted in common appellate practice for sound reasons of principle. See Silver v. IMAX Corp., 2011 ONSC 1035, 105 OR (3d) 212. These principles apply equally to motions for leave to appeal in the Divisional Court argued before a single judge and motions for leave to appeal heard in writing by a panel of three judges.

[3] Of course, it is in the discretion of a judge deciding a motion for leave to appeal to give reasons. However, in my view this discretion ought to be exercised sparingly for all the reasons that decisions on motions for leave to appeal before a Divisional Court panel, in the Court of Appeal, and in the Supreme Court of Canada, are rendered without reasons.

[4] In addition to the policy reasons for not providing reasons on motions for leave to appeal, in this case it seems likely that there will be further administrative proceedings and potentially litigation respecting the underlying issue of using residential premises for certain kinds of short-term rentals. It would not be helpful to those potential proceedings for this court to provide a gloss on the decision below in the course of providing unnecessary reasons for denying leave to appeal.

. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo

In The Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court gave reasons for dismissing leave to appeal, which is unusual:

Exercise of Discretion to Give Reasons

[6] I am cognizant of the general practice of the Divisional Court not to give reasons when granting or refusing leave to appeal.

[7] The reasons behind the practice were recently reviewed by Corbett J. in the case of Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949, applying his earlier decision in Silver v. Imax, 2011 ONSC 1035, 105 O.R. (3d) 212. (See also Lokhandwala v. Khan, 2019 ONSC 6346, 34 R.F.L. (8th) 139)

[8] Corbett J. noted in Westhaver that the practice in the Divisional Court not to give reasons mirrors the practice in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada on motions for leave and is rooted in sound reasons of principle. The principles apply equally to motions for leave to appeal in the Divisional Court argued before a single judge and motions for leave to appeal heard in writing by a panel of three judges (see para. 2).

[9] Corbett J. offered three reasons supporting the practice not to give reasons:

(a) decisions on motions for leave to appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada are (almost always) rendered without reasons. The Divisional Court mirrors this common appellate practice;

(b) when leave is not granted, reasons that call into question some aspect of the decision below may increase uncertainty in the law and, in interlocutory matters, cause difficulties for the parties as the case moves forward. In any event, the parties already have reasons from the court below and no purpose is served by giving them a second set of reasons coming to the same conclusion;

(c) where leave is granted, the court granting leave should not constitute itself an additional member of the appeal panel, weighing in, in detail, on the merits of the appeal. Rather, the appeal panel will provide reasons on the appeal itself, and thus, little purpose is served by providing elaborate reasons on leave decisions.

[10] At paragraph 4 of Westhaver Corbett J. confirmed that it is ultimately in the discretion of a Divisional Court judge deciding a motion for leave to appeal to give reasons for her or his decision, but he noted that this discretion ought to be exercised sparingly.

[11] For the following two reasons, I have determined that it is desirable under the present circumstances to give reasons for dismissing the motion for leave to appeal:

(a) the Decision from which leave to appeal is sought is a final decision. Thus, unlike in the case of the dismissal of a motion for leave from an interlocutory order, there is little or no potential for reasons to cause difficulty for the parties moving forward;

(b) The Decision concerns a question involving the collection of public revenue and is not a private dispute. The ratepayers and residents of the Region, through their elected Council, would benefit from an understanding of the reasons for denial of the opportunity to take the issue involving the applicable development charge rate to an appeal before the Divisional Court.