David L. Corbett

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 applicant sought judicial review of two prompt payment adjudications under the Construction Act, arguing procedural unfairness.

The applicant alleged the respondent raised new reasons for non-payment not detailed in its Notices of Non-Payment and that the adjudicators unfairly denied the applicant's request to deliver reply submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicators reasonably concluded the respondent merely elaborated on its original reasons, and the refusal of reply submissions accorded with the Act and the parties' agreed process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision awarding the respondent $93,445.92 under the Construction Act.

The dispute centered on whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under the Act's transitional provisions, given the contract covered clean-up work for two separate wastewater ponds (Pond #7 and Pond #14) with different procurement dates.

The Divisional Court held that the works on the two ponds constituted separate improvements on non-contiguous lands.

Consequently, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction over claims related to Pond #7, as its procurement process commenced before the adjudication provisions came into force.

The court quashed the award for Pond #7 and reduced the total award to $11,638.17 for Pond #14.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision granting the respondent's request for prompt payment under the Construction Act.

The adjudicator found jurisdiction on the basis that the contract was not completed because more than 1% of the contract price was owing.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the adjudicator was plainly wrong in law, as 'price of completion' under s. 2(3) of the Act refers to the value of uncompleted work, not the quantum of disputed payment claims.

The matter was remitted for a fresh determination before a different adjudicator.

The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.

The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision directing it to pay wages to a former employee.

The employer argued the Board's credibility findings were inconsistent and its decision unreasonable regarding the employee's refusal of a call-in shift.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings and noting that a trier of fact may accept parts of a witness's evidence while rejecting others.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a costs order and a subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $15,000 to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave and directed the parties to schedule a case management teleconference to establish a schedule and fix the questions for review.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the review panel.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that the insured's election of benefits under s. 31(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was invalid due to the insurer's non-compliance with s. 32(2)(b).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's factual findings regarding the insurer's non-compliance were not reviewable on a question of law.

The Court agreed that because the initial election was invalid, the insured had not made an election within the meaning of the SABS, and therefore the general prohibition against changing an election did not apply.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated March 6, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $4,200 payable to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2023.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Panel that upheld the revocation of his licence to practise law for professional misconduct, including mortgage fraud and misappropriation of client funds.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Division erred in deeming facts and documents admitted after he provided only generic denials and objections to a request to admit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct amounted to a refusal to engage in the admissions process and that the Appeal Panel made no reviewable errors in its comprehensive reasons or its order.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to stay a civil action.

The appellants argued the respondent breached the common law implied undertaking rule by using documents disclosed in an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding to initiate the civil action.

The Divisional Court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not supplant the common law implied undertaking for administrative proceedings, and found that the respondent breached the undertaking.

However, because the appellants suffered no prejudice, the court declined to stay the action and instead ordered substantial indemnity costs against the respondent.

The moving parties, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated March 2, 2023.

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

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.