David L. Corbett

The applicant sought judicial review of an Animal Care Review Board decision upholding the warrantless seizure of 41 cats from her apartment.

The applicant failed to attend the Board hearing to present her Charter arguments, and the Board proceeded in her absence, finding the warrantless entry justified under s. 29 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to grant a further adjournment was procedurally fair and its conclusion on the warrantless entry was reasonable.

The appellant registered an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act but failed to give the required notice within 10 days.

The motion judge voided the enforcement steps and barred the appellant from taking any further steps to enforce the determination.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while voiding the initial enforcement steps was an appropriate discretionary remedy for the non-compliance, barring future enforcement was disproportionate and contrary to the prompt payment scheme of the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the bar on future enforcement was struck out.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order.

Neither party uploaded materials to CaseLines despite obligations under the Consolidated Practice Direction and reminders from the court office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed, all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of fifteen reconsideration decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing his applications alleging discrimination by various individuals and organizations.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file the judicial review, which the Divisional Court granted due to the HRTO's delay and lack of prejudice.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the HRTO's decisions to deny reconsideration were reasonable and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration requests.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed his motion opposing the confirmation of a Construction Lien Report.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was essentially repeating the same submissions made to the lower court.

The appeal was dismissed for the reasons given by the Superior Court judge, and costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that summarily dismissed his complaints regarding his treatment at the respondent facility.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and negligence, claiming his medical records contained errors and his condition was not as serious as indicated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the complaint did not raise a serious issue of discrimination on a prohibited ground.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in respect to both impugned orders and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order dated February 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal an earlier order of Cameron J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

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

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, failed to attend her scheduled appeal hearing, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.

She brought a motion to set aside the dismissal, claiming she had inadvertently mis-diarized the date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding her explanation lacked credibility given her history of delay and past dishonesty to the court.

The court also noted the appeal lacked apparent merit, was technically out of time, and that rescheduling would waste scarce judicial resources.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a 2021 group grievance as an abuse of process.

The arbitrator had concluded the grievance was identical in substance to a 2017 grievance that was settled by a consent award.

In doing so, the arbitrator relied on her own notes and recollections from the without-prejudice mediation of the 2017 grievance, without notice to the union.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable as she failed to analyze the actual settlement agreement to determine if the union had impliedly accepted the employer's position.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to enforce a Building Code compliance order regarding an unpermitted dwelling unit.

The application judge had found that the building official's act of looking through the window of a storage unit constituted an unlawful warrantless search of a dwelling unit and excluded the evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the official was authorized by statute to inspect the property and that looking through the window of a building not permitted as a dwelling unit did not constitute an unlawful entry into a dwelling unit.

The compliance order was enforced.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The tenants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that dismissed their motion to void a prior eviction order.

The LTB argued that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory LTB decision.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no statutory provision in the Residential Tenancies Act or the Courts of Justice Act conferring such jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to pursue their remedies at the LTB.