|
Courts - Divisional Court. Medeiros v. Vacheff
In Medeiros v. Vacheff (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court comments on it's own limited jurisdiction:[20] Lastly, on the merits, Mr. Medeiros makes submissions about the merits of his civil claim and challenges the concept that his civil claim can or should be precluded by the workers’ compensation regime. Mr. Medeiros further submits that this court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to hear this application, relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court. However, the Divisional Court is a statutory court. It does not have the inherent jurisdiction to proceed as suggested by Mr. Medeiros. . Smith v. Gega
In Smith v. Gega (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court noted a 2023 court memorandum that stated: "(a)s of January 25, 2023, as per the memorandum from Associate Chief Justice McWatt, issued pursuant to section 21(2)(c) [SS: "Composition of court for hearings"] of the Courts of Justice Act, all appeals from the Landlord and Tenant Board are to be decided by a single judge of the Divisional Court.":JURISDICTION
[13] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction pursuant to s.210 of the RTA, to hear appeals on questions of law. As of January 25, 2023, as per the memorandum from Associate Chief Justice McWatt, issued pursuant to section 21(2)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, all appeals from the Landlord and Tenant Board are to be decided by a single judge of the Divisional Court. I therefore have appropriate jurisdiction to hear this matter.
[14] Under subs. 210 (4) and (5) of the RTA, I may affirm, rescind, or replace the Order; remit the matter to the Board with the Divisional Court’s opinion; or make any other order, including with respect to costs that I consider proper. . Soleimani v. Karimi
In Soleimani v. Karimi (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court comments on it's equitable remedy jurisdiction:[25] Puya submits that his claims on appeal that rely on equitable principles may fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court under s. 19(1)(a.1). He cites the decision of Finlayson, J. in M.P.A.N. v. J.N., 2018 ONCJ 769. At para. 75 of that decision, Finlayson, J. noted that the Ontario Court of Justice does not have the jurisdiction to make an order of equitable set-off.
[26] M.P.A.N. is not helpful in determining our case. The Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, as confirmed in ss. 11(2) and 96 of the CJA. The Divisional Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice: CJA, s.18(1).
[27] Sections 11(2) and 96 of the CJA provide as follows:Superior Court of Justice
11 (1) The Ontario Court (General Division) is continued as a superior court of record under the name Superior Court of Justice in English and Cour supérieure de justice in French.
Same
(2) The Superior Court of Justice has all the jurisdiction, power and authority historically exercised by courts of common law and equity in England and Ontario.
Rules of law and equity
96 (1) Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of equity and the common law.
Rules of equity to prevail
(2) Where a rule of equity conflicts with a rule of the common law, the rule of equity prevails.
Jurisdiction for equitable relief
(3) Only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. . Murray v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
In Murray v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court noted the limitations of the Divisional Court:[8] The Divisional Court is a statutory appellate and review court. It is not a court of inherent jurisdiction. This is well-trod ground and the applicant’s submissions to the contrary are without merit.
|
