David L. Corbett

The appellant solicitor appealed a decision regarding an assessment hearing that he failed to attend, arguing he did not receive notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's conclusion that notice was properly sent to the appellant's email address and that it was reasonable to conclude he had withdrawn from the proceeding.

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 $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving party, the Town of Caledon, brought a motion for leave to apply for judicial review of two decisions made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The court also ordered that the disputed amount paid into court remain there pending the final decision, and stayed the impugned orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $2,500.

The court also set an expedited schedule for the hearing of the appeal and any contemplated motion to stay the appeal pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada.

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 the responding party.

The appellant owner appealed a motion judge's order directing the release of holdback funds to subcontractors under the Construction Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in calculating the minimum holdback and in ordering payments without a formal summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the law regarding basic holdback obligations and set-off, and properly utilized the summary procedure under s. 67 of the Act to expedite payment to subcontractors.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility and production of compelled evidence in a civil contempt motion arising from alleged breaches of a Mareva order.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the motion judge's decision that answers to undertakings and further document production could not be compelled while the contempt motion was outstanding.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that evidence compelled prior to the contempt motion was admissible and did not violate sections 7, 11(c), or 13 of the Charter.

However, the court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in prematurely ruling on the admissibility of future answers to undertakings and in deferring the production motion.

The court held that the obligation to comply with the Mareva order continues despite the contempt motion, and admissibility should be determined when the evidence is tendered, based on whether the contempt motion is predominantly coercive or penal.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Roger J. dated January 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party, the Estate Trustee Without a Will, brought a motion for leave to appeal the costs orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court held that the impugned order was solely in respect to costs, requiring leave to appeal under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted leave to appeal the denial of costs to the Estate Trustee During Litigation payable by any of the parties or from the Estate.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no respondent filed responding motion materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that a binding settlement of tort and accident benefits claims was reached via email following mediation.

Shortly after the email exchange, the plaintiff was killed.

The insurer argued no settlement was reached because the plaintiff had not finalized the structure percentage or signed the settlement disclosure notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the essential terms were agreed upon, the structure percentage was a default minimum, and the right to rescind under consumer protection legislation implies a settlement was already reached.

The self-represented appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application.

The appellants argued that the landlord's refusal to renew their residential lease for a one-year term constituted harassment under s. 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 38(1) of the Act, the non-renewal of a fixed-term lease automatically results in a month-to-month tenancy with full security of tenure.

The court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence regarding the landlord's motivation, as the appellants' legal position was untenable.

The self-represented applicants sought an extension of time to bring a motion to review an order quashing their application for judicial review regarding COVID-19 vaccinations for children.

The applicants had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, noting that the applicants had a timely intention to appeal but took the wrong route, and that the justice of the case favoured allowing them to challenge the summary dismissal of their application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) that dismissed a review of two decisions by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

IIROC had found the appellant liable for improperly altering client documents after they were signed, imposing a 12-month suspension, close supervision, and fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OSC applied the correct standard of review and made no palpable and overriding errors in upholding IIROC's findings of fact and sanctions.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to maintain the standard of practice by treating cancer patients with unproven complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, failing to obtain informed consent, and improperly billing OHIP for palliative care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the OIPRD not to investigate allegations of police misconduct.

After repeatedly failing to provide meaningful grounds for review and attempting to relitigate a previously dismissed complaint, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.

The applicant responded with incoherent and vexatious motions, refusing to comply with court directions.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered that the applicant may not commence further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior judicial permission.

The moving parties, Canada School of Public Service and Pierre Leduc, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hackland J. dated December 1, 2022.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated December 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive to the responding party.