David L. Corbett

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 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.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal revoking her mortgage agent licence.

The Tribunal found she had engaged in a repeated pattern of dishonesty, including failing to disclose a previous real estate registration revocation and a criminal conviction for obstructing justice, and misleading investigators.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal should have applied a higher standard of proof and erred in its penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the civil standard of proof applies regardless of the seriousness of the allegations, and found no palpable or overriding error in the Tribunal's decision to revoke the licence.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that jurisdiction over the proposed appeal lies with the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Myers 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 parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court judge on February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Nieckarz J. dated February 21, 2023, and other related orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,663.98.

The appellant, a former member of the Law Society of Ontario, attempted to appeal interlocutory orders of the Law Society Tribunal after his main appeal was dismissed in 2021 for failure to perfect.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant responded with pseudolegal arguments challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the validity of the Canadian Constitution.

The court dismissed the appeal and issued an order prohibiting the appellant from commencing or continuing proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home and dismissing her cross-motion for temporary exclusive possession.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, balancing the prima facie right to sale against potential prejudice, and appropriately considered the status quo of the parties and their adult children.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) applied for judicial review of a Grievance Procedure Arbitrator's (GPA) decision ordering the disclosure of a redacted workplace harassment investigation report to the union's Local Grievance Committee.

The CBC argued the GPA's decision was not reviewable, that the GPA lacked jurisdiction, and that the CBC was denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that the GPA's decision was reviewable because the GPA exercised a statutory power of decision under the Canada Labour Code.

The Court found the disclosure order was reasonable and within the GPA's broad jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the exchange of relevant information.

The Court also dismissed the procedural fairness arguments, finding the CBC had ample opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order vacating its claims for a construction lien and dismissing its breach of contract claims.

The appellant argued it was a 'contractor' under the Construction Act by virtue of an undisclosed assignment agreement, rather than a 'subcontractor'.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's finding that there was no triable issue regarding the assignment, meaning the appellant was a subcontractor whose lien was registered out of time.

The court confirmed that the Associate Justice applied the correct test for a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act and did not improperly convert it into a summary judgment motion.

Following the dismissal of her application as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1, the self-represented applicant repeatedly emailed the court and the judge directly, demanding explanations and information on how to appeal or complain.

The court issued an endorsement clarifying that the decision was a final disposition appealable with leave to the Court of Appeal.

Due to the applicant's repeated vexatious communications, the court directed that all future communications from her be sent to a judge and that ordinarily no response will be provided.

The appellant, a former lawyer whose licence was revoked following a criminal conviction for misappropriating client funds, appealed an order terminating the Law Society's trusteeship over his law practice.

He argued the motion judge erred in denying an adjournment, fixing the trustee's compensation, and authorizing the destruction of his client files after one year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the adjournment and compensation, finding no reviewable error.

However, on consent of the Law Society, the court varied the order to extend the file retention period to allow the appellant access to the files for his pending criminal appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision allowing a breach of trust claim to be joined with a construction lien claim under the amended Construction Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the Act itself is silent on joinder, O. Reg. 302/18 expressly permits only the joinder of breach of contract or subcontract claims.

By implication, the regulation precludes the joinder of trust claims in a construction lien proceeding.

The order permitting joinder was set aside and the trust claims were struck.

The appellant, a registered nurse practitioner, appealed a 10-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for failing to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an intimate relationship with a former patient while continuing to treat the former patient's spouse.

The appellant argued the penalty was unfit and failed to adequately account for the abusive nature of the relationship and her vulnerability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel made no error in principle, properly considered the mitigating psychological evidence, and imposed a fit penalty within the reasonable range given the serious impact on both patients.

The moving party brought motions to strike an affidavit, for a sealing order, and for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, permitting the responding party to redact its materials to remove allegedly privileged information.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party for the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her from a residential unit for demolition purposes.

The tenant argued the Board erred by extending the time for the landlord to pay the required statutory compensation after the initial cheque bounced due to the tenant's delay in cashing it, and that she was denied natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under s. 190(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act to extend the time requirement, and that the tenant was afforded procedural fairness.