David L. Corbett

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief of Police dismissing her complaint against certain police officers as unsubstantiated, based on an investigative report.

Before the independent review of the decision could be completed, the subject officers resigned, causing the review to be halted pursuant to section 90 of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the complaint process is held in abeyance for five years and could resume if the officers are re-employed.

The court also held that statutory secrecy provisions prevent the investigative report from being used against the applicant in other civil proceedings.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment on a settlement allegedly reached during a pre-trial conference.

On the return of the motion, the defendants sought an adjournment to retain new counsel, having previously indicated they would not file responding materials.

Finding the adjournment request to be a potential abuse of process to delay payment, the court granted the adjournment but ordered the corporate defendant to immediately pay the $1,650,000 settlement amount into trust on an interim basis, along with $10,000 in costs.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants brought an application against the Toronto District School Board regarding an error in the lottery admission process for Elementary Alternative Schools that excluded equity-deserving students.

The TDSB rectified the error, but the applicants did not understand the rectification steps until reviewing the TDSB's responding materials.

The applicants subsequently abandoned their application and sought costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants $20,000 in costs, finding that the TDSB failed to clearly communicate its solution prior to filing its responding materials, making it reasonable for the applicants to pursue the application until that point.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, which automatically stayed the eviction.

During a case management teleconference, the court considered whether to lift the stay.

The court found that the tenant owed $45,000 in rent arrears, had failed to make interim payments ordered by the LTB, and could not make a meaningful payment towards the arrears.

Concluding that the tenancy had failed and the stay would cause continuing damage to the landlord, the court lifted the stay and directed the Sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated March 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the aggregate amount of $20,000.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, sought to appeal a final order of a Superior Court Judge and a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Superior Court Judge's order, as such appeals lie to the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court quashed the appeal from the Superior Court Judge's order and lifted the interim stay, but granted a brief extension to allow the appellant to seek a stay from the Court of Appeal.

The appeal from the LTB decision was permitted to continue.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the motion judge dated May 8, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The moving party, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought two motions for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court regarding summary judgment and certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded agreed aggregate costs of $25,000 to the responding party.

The landlords obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for personal use of the rental unit.

The tenants appealed the decision to the Divisional Court, alleging procedural unfairness and raising various irrelevant issues.

The landlords moved to quash the appeal.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's decision was based on straightforward factual findings that were not subject to appeal, and that the tenants' procedural fairness claims were without foundation.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The applicant sought to commence an application for judicial review of a 2016 Human Rights Tribunal decision, which was identical to an application previously dismissed by the court.

The court dismissed the new application and the motion for an extension of time under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not bring further proceedings against the respondent without prior written permission.

The moving party sought leave to appeal but failed to file her materials as ordered.

The court adjourned the motion and set a new deadline, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The moving party again failed to serve, file, and upload her materials.

After failing to provide an explanation for the delay when prompted by court staff, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the court's directions, without costs.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and evicting them for smoking marijuana in their unit, which caused health issues for the landlords' children.

The tenants argued the notice of termination was invalid because it failed to specify the exact times they smoked, and that they were denied procedural fairness during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act requires grounds, not specific times, and that the notice provided sufficient detail.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in the Board's conduct of the hearing.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to produce a witness statement taken by an adjuster from an employee after litigation commenced.

The motions judge had found that litigation privilege over the statement was waived because its contents were discussed and particulars provided during examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred by failing to apply the established principle that a party must disclose relevant facts from a privileged document during discovery without waiving privilege over the document itself.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim to the proceeds of the sale of his brother and sister-in-law's matrimonial home.

The appellant claimed he advanced $700,000 for the down payment and held a beneficial interest via a trust declaration and oral agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no triable issue regarding the advanced funds, the oral trust violated the Statute of Frauds, and the written trust declaration was unconscionable and coerced from the respondent wife.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.