David L. Corbett

The applicant attempted to file a human rights complaint on the final day of the limitation period but was delayed past 5:00 PM due to printing issues at the Tribunal office.

Tribunal staff refused to accept the application, and the Tribunal subsequently ruled the later filing was out of time.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, noting it failed to consider the applicant's good faith efforts to file on time and the severe consequences of denying the application.

The application was allowed and remitted to the Tribunal.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying a request to adjourn a scheduled hearing.

The appellant argued the appeal automatically stayed the LAT proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1, confirming it has no jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from the LAT.

The court noted the dismissal was without prejudice to an application for judicial review but declined to grant an interim stay of the LAT hearing.

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father decision-making authority to have their seven-year-old child vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in J.N. v. C.G. The court held that government recommendations regarding vaccination are admissible under the public document exception to the hearsay rule, and judicial notice may be taken of regulatory approval.

The motion judge correctly placed the onus on the mother to establish why the child should not be vaccinated, and did not err in allocating decision-making on an interim basis or in weighing the mother's views as the primary caregiver.

The appellant father appealed an interim motion order that granted the respondent mother sole decision-making authority to vaccinate their eldest child against COVID-19 and significantly restricted the father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the vaccination, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on government recommendations and the child's best interests.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding parenting time, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the father's unvaccinated status as a primary factor and unjustifiably sacrificing the children's meaningful relationship with their father.

The parenting schedule was remitted to the lower court.

The moving party sought leave to apply for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the prompt payment provisions of the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court established the test for granting leave in such cases, noting that adjudicators' decisions are interim and leave should rarely be granted.

The court held that the test is analogous to the conjunctive test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

Finding that the moving party did not meet this high bar, the court dismissed the motion for leave with costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rahman J. dated November 2, 2022.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $10,000 to the responding parties other than one specific respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Regional Senior Justice MacLeod dated December 6, 2022.

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

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was final, meaning an appeal could be brought as of right.

The court set a deadline for any motion to extend the time to appeal and ordered no costs for the leave motion.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 4, 2022 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded their costs materials to CaseLines by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

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 $9,334.37 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion for findings of contempt and granting various temporary orders.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting that the dismissal of contempt allegations is a final order within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The moving party accepted this characterization and failed to identify any interlocutory issues for appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declined to transfer the matter to the Court of Appeal due to a lack of merit.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the LTB proceeded with the hearing in their absence after they requested an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the LTB followed its own rules, as the tenants failed to provide evidence supporting their adjournment request prior to the hearing.

The court also upheld the LTB's refusal to admit a doctor's note as fresh evidence on reconsideration, noting it lacked sufficient detail.

The motion to quash was granted and an eviction date was set.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under the Insurance Act following a fire at his property.

The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction, denied procedural fairness, and had a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the umpire had jurisdiction to set the appraisal process and that the applicant had effectively withdrawn from the process by failing to file an appraisal brief or attend the hearing.

The court also held that the applicant's conflict of interest objection was untimely and deemed waived.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's rulings on interest and costs in an accident benefits dispute.

The applicant argued that interest on retroactive attendant care benefits should be calculated from an earlier date, and challenged the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the interest issue was squarely governed by the court's prior decision in Grigoroff, which held that interest runs from the date the retroactive claim form is filed.

The court also found the costs award was highly discretionary and the Delegate's decision to uphold it was reasonable.

The moving party, a paralegal whose license was revoked nunc pro tunc due to a false statement on his original application, sought an extension of time to appeal the Law Society's decision.

The Law Society had required a two-stage process, relegating the assessment of his intervening good character to a new application.

The court found the moving party had an arguable appeal regarding the reasonableness of this two-stage process, provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and noted no prejudice to the respondent.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, obtaining an automatic stay.

The landlord sought to lift the stay due to nearly two years of unpaid rent totaling over $36,800.

The court directed the tenant to provide proof of rent payments, which the tenant failed to do.

Finding the tenant's conduct to be an egregious abuse of process, the court lifted the stay of eviction.

The appeal was subsequently dismissed after the tenant failed to comply with further case management directions.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy on the basis of fraud.

The tenant obtained an automatic stay of the eviction order upon filing the appeal.

The court directed the tenant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as an abuse of process, given the LTB's finding of fraud and the tenant's failure to pay rent, resulting in over $71,000 in arrears.

Finding that the tenant failed to raise an appealable issue and was using the appeal process to perpetuate the fraud and avoid paying rent, the court lifted the stay and summarily dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.