David L. Corbett

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Review Board which found that their top-loading manure tank was not a normal farm practice due to significant non-compliance with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Board had ordered the appellants to cease using the tank within 24 months after finding the respondents were directly affected by an odour disturbance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its conclusion that the 166-foot deviation from the guidelines precluded the tank from being a normal farm practice.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment and costs endorsement regarding a construction contract dispute.

The trial judge had found the appellant's evidence not credible, rejected its claims for extras, and accepted the respondent's evidence regarding back charges and costs to complete.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were available on the record and her approach to contract accounting was correct.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $7,500 awarded to the respondent.

The moving party, acting as an estate trustee, sought leave to appeal an order of Gilmore J. dated August 22, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hilliard J. dated August 22, 2023.

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

The applicant brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded nominal costs to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent's application for the return of a deposit after she terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property due to a registered easement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the purchase agreement did not provide sufficient notice of the easement.

The agreement specifically referenced the easement in the legal description and the respondent failed to establish that the easement did not fall within the exception for minor utility easements.

The matter was returned to the application judge to determine damages.

The appellant appealed a final order varying child support and a subsequent order dismissing her 14B motion.

The appellant failed to appear for the Zoom hearing, and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The court also reviewed the written materials and found the appeal lacked merit, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding insufficient evidence for the appellant's claims.

The respondent was awarded $1,000 in costs.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of parenting terms in final consent orders and imposing sanctions that suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and precluded the father from bringing further proceedings.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of contempt, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated non-compliance.

However, the court set aside the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The appellant father appealed a finding of contempt and the resulting sanctions for breaching parenting terms in a final consent order.

The motion judge had suspended the respondent mother's child support obligations and barred the father from bringing further proceedings until he complied.

The Divisional Court upheld the contempt finding, noting the father's deliberate and financially motivated breaches.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the sanctions, finding that suspending ongoing child support and imposing an unbounded penalty were errors in principle.

The court substituted a fixed penalty of $36,000 against the father, stayed pending his commencement of a motion to change support.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that dismissed his claim for compensatory spousal support and limited non-compensatory support to 19 months following a 17-year marriage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by dismissing the compensatory claim based on the parties' choices during the marriage rather than the actual economic consequences of its breakdown.

The court also found the trial judge erred by departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines duration range without providing reasons.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to set aside a default order regarding parenting and child support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in applying the legal test to set aside a default judgment, specifically regarding the merits of his case and potential prejudice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law or principle and concluding the motion judge properly considered the evidentiary record and all relevant factors, including the appellant's failure to genuinely engage in the proceedings.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board confirming a statement of account for over $1.5 million in care costs for more than 200 seized sled dogs.

The applicants argued the Board erred in its evidentiary findings, including relying on hearsay and failing to make adverse credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as it was based on uncontroverted evidence from the respondent, and the applicants had failed to adduce any evidence or cross-examine the respondent's witness at the hearing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Lemon J., which incorporated the orders set out in the endorsement of Fowler Byrne J. 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, 1000101702 Ontario Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 7, 2023.

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 sought leave to appeal a lower court order dated August 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant 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 to the respondents in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's order setting the fair market value of a sliver of trust property at $15,000, which the respondent was required to pay to retain the land.

The appellants argued the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and sought to remit the matter for a new valuation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that when read in the context of the trial judgment and the expert reports, the trial judge's path of reasoning was clear.

The trial judge appropriately rejected the appellants' expert report, which valued the land as a stand-alone building lot, and accepted the valuation of the land to the trust to do equity between the parties.

The applicant, a teacher, sought judicial review of the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers' decisions not to refer his complaints against three colleagues to the Discipline Committee.

The complaints related to a school play about bullying and violence that the applicant claimed triggered a traumatic response.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the decisions, as complainants in professional discipline cases generally only have standing for procedural fairness issues.

The court further held that the process was procedurally fair and the committee's decisions were reasonable.

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 each of the two responding parties.