David L. Corbett

The appellants, who provided negligent legal services to the respondent despite not being licensed to do so, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $41,000 in damages.

The appellants argued the motion judge decided the case on a novel theory of liability—failure to advise—that was not pleaded, denying them a fair opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was clearly raised in the pleadings and motion materials.

The court also dismissed the appeal of the costs award, noting leave to appeal costs had not been sought.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order requiring the production of the deceased's counselling records from 2005 to 2009 in a will challenge alleging undue influence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by applying a low threshold that permitted a fishing expedition for sensitive personal information.

The court also found a palpable and overriding error in relying on the absence of evidence of undue influence in the two years prior to the will's execution to justify broader disclosure.

The order for production was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his application for a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator's reasons were inadequate, conclusory, and failed to account for extensive expert medical evidence regarding the appellant's traumatic brain injury.

The court held that the adjudicator made factual findings without evidentiary support, particularly regarding the appellant's volunteer activities.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of a determination made by an adjudicator under the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contractors (ODACC).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two prior orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,313.06.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that imposed conditions on the respondents' motor vehicle salesperson registrations rather than revoking them.

The respondents, principals of a car dealership, had failed to supervise employees who engaged in repeated dishonest conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT erred in principle by failing to ascribe appropriate regulatory responsibility to the respondents for the repeated misconduct and by failing to consider the overall context of the business operations.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a fresh hearing on remedy before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of B. MacFarlane J. dated September 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator in an Ontario Dispute Adjudication of Construction Contractors case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice to the moving party regarding a motion to extend time and for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision dismissing a summary judgment motion.

The court concluded that the leave to appeal proceeding was not one of the 'clearest of cases' warranting dismissal under Rule 2.1.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding, set a timetable for the extension and leave motions to be heard in writing, and directed the moving party to provide submissions regarding a separate judicial review proceeding.

The applicant challenged LAT and HRTO decisions arising from the denial of statutory accident benefits after the insurer relied on an IME report without producing the physician for cross-examination.

The court held that the LAT lacked jurisdiction to issue a second reconsideration decision more than a year later and while appeal and judicial review proceedings were already perfected, as that step was not taken within a reasonable time and offended functus officio and finality principles.

The court further accepted that the earlier LAT decisions could not stand because reliance on the challenged expert report without cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The LAT and HRTO decisions were quashed and remitted, with costs of $15,000 awarded against the insurer on the LAT matter, but no costs awarded to the applicant on the HRTO matter.

On a Small Claims Court appeal, the appellants challenged a judgment entered after their pleadings were struck when their paralegal failed to attend on time for trial because of a diarizing error.

The appeal court held that the Deputy Judge erred in law by treating the earlier ruling as functus officio and refusing to consider whether the order striking the pleadings should be set aside once the paralegal arrived before the proceeding had concluded.

The court found that procedural fairness required consideration of available discretionary remedies, including permitting participation in the damages hearing and requiring proof on liability-related issues.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new trial before a different Deputy Judge on condition that the amount of the impugned judgment, excluding costs and interest, be paid into court within 60 days.

No costs were ordered for the first trial or the appeal.

The appellant challenged a tribunal decision holding that several sets of condominium board minutes were adequate under the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court held that the appeal was limited to questions of law under s. 146(2), reviewed on a correctness standard, and found no error in the tribunal's articulation or application of the governing principles from prior tribunal jurisprudence.

The court concluded that the alleged omissions largely raised governance complaints rather than defects in the sufficiency of minutes, and that the most compelling examples still did not show inadequacy.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs payable to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the costs portion of a Small Claims Court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding $4,000 in costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 2025 decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.