David L. Corbett

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.

The defendants 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 parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of an oral caution imposed by the College of Pharmacists Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee for overbilling at five pharmacies.

The applicant argued the caution was punitive rather than remedial, given his prior discipline for similar conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable because the current conduct involved significantly more money, more pharmacies, and a different time period, thereby posing a greater risk to the public and demonstrating a need for further remediation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a 9-month membership suspension imposed by a not-for-profit pickleball organization.

The respondent raised a preliminary jurisdictional challenge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the organization was not exercising a statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court noted that the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act regulates internal affairs but does not render them subject to judicial review.

Furthermore, the private dispute did not have a sufficient public dimension to warrant judicial review.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) investigated a cheating scandal involving the November 2021 licensing exams.

Based on statistical anomalies, the LSO voided the applicants' exam results and their registration in the licensing process without holding a hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that while voiding the compromised exams was a reasonable administrative measure, voiding the applicants' registration and imposing regulatory sanctions without a hearing breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the punitive sanctions and remitted the matters to the LSO.

The applicant, a licensed paralegal, brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that he is authorized to process and file immigration applications under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) maintained that By-Law 4 restricts paralegals to providing legal services only in connection with proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LSO's interpretation of By-Law 4 was correct, that the by-law does not conflict with the IRPA under the federal paramountcy doctrine, and that the restriction does not violate section 7 of the Charter.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a boundary fence dispute, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the matter should have been addressed under the Line Fences Act.

The Divisional Court noted that the City of Toronto had opted out of the Line Fences Act, meaning the statutory cost apportionment scheme no longer applied.

Because the trial judge appeared to rely on the principles of the Line Fences Act without identifying an alternative legal cause of action, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and remitted the matter for a new trial with directions to amend the pleadings.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that required him to pay $50,000 in rent arrears to void an eviction order, arguing this exceeded the Board's $35,000 monetary jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that while the Board cannot issue a standalone order for payment exceeding $35,000, this limit does not apply to the conditions a tenant must satisfy to void a termination order under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that restricting 'pay to stay' conditions to the monetary limit would result in an absurdity, allowing tenants to obtain rent abatements by accumulating massive arrears.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse of a patient and other professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility findings, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility determinations were entitled to significant deference, the Committee properly addressed inconsistencies in the evidence, and there was no demonstration of uneven scrutiny.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court reviewed the written submissions of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting a typographical error in the neutral citation of the underlying reasons for decision.

The moving party 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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation, appealed an application judge's order setting terms for its upcoming annual general meeting and board elections following a disrupted meeting and internal governance dispute.

The appellant argued the terms regarding membership eligibility and election procedures were inconsistent with its by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge had broad discretion under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act to impose terms for fair elections and made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings regarding membership.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 26, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive to the responding party, payable within thirty days.

The moving party, Vince Demasi, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Bird J. dated April 4, 2023.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Sweeny R.S.J. dated May 26, 2023.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

The self-represented applicant moved to set aside a final panel decision of the Divisional Court that had dismissed his application to halt pediatric COVID-19 vaccinations.

The applicant alleged that newly discovered evidence showed the Chief Medical Officer of Health had an undisclosed conflict of interest involving Pfizer, which amounted to fraud.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the fresh evidence would not affect the core findings that the applicant lacked standing and failed to plead an arguable claim.

The appellant engaged in digital protests against the respondent's anti-abortion vigils by posting videos on social media.

The respondent obtained an interim and then an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant's online activity, despite the appellant having ceased the activity months prior and having filed an anti-SLAPP motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appeal was not stayed by the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the injunctions, finding the motion judge erred by failing to apply the strict test for quia timet injunctions restraining expressive activity and by failing to consider the pending anti-SLAPP motion.