David L. Corbett

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of a determination made by an adjudicator under the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contractors (ODACC).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator in an Ontario Dispute Adjudication of Construction Contractors case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment that ordered primary residence and sole decision-making to the respondent mother, and required the father to maintain a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure child support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all parenting issues but noted a factual error regarding the existence of the $250,000 policy.

After the hearing, the appellant provided evidence that he had subsequently obtained the required insurance.

The court held that the trial judge's factual error was therefore not overriding and declined to remit the issue of security back to the trial court, leaving enforcement to the trial court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice to the moving party regarding a motion to extend time and for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision dismissing a summary judgment motion.

The court concluded that the leave to appeal proceeding was not one of the 'clearest of cases' warranting dismissal under Rule 2.1.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding, set a timetable for the extension and leave motions to be heard in writing, and directed the moving party to provide submissions regarding a separate judicial review proceeding.

The applicant challenged LAT and HRTO decisions arising from the denial of statutory accident benefits after the insurer relied on an IME report without producing the physician for cross-examination.

The court held that the LAT lacked jurisdiction to issue a second reconsideration decision more than a year later and while appeal and judicial review proceedings were already perfected, as that step was not taken within a reasonable time and offended functus officio and finality principles.

The court further accepted that the earlier LAT decisions could not stand because reliance on the challenged expert report without cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The LAT and HRTO decisions were quashed and remitted, with costs of $15,000 awarded against the insurer on the LAT matter, but no costs awarded to the applicant on the HRTO matter.

On a Small Claims Court appeal, the appellants challenged a judgment entered after their pleadings were struck when their paralegal failed to attend on time for trial because of a diarizing error.

The appeal court held that the Deputy Judge erred in law by treating the earlier ruling as functus officio and refusing to consider whether the order striking the pleadings should be set aside once the paralegal arrived before the proceeding had concluded.

The court found that procedural fairness required consideration of available discretionary remedies, including permitting participation in the damages hearing and requiring proof on liability-related issues.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new trial before a different Deputy Judge on condition that the amount of the impugned judgment, excluding costs and interest, be paid into court within 60 days.

No costs were ordered for the first trial or the appeal.

The appellant challenged a tribunal decision holding that several sets of condominium board minutes were adequate under the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court held that the appeal was limited to questions of law under s. 146(2), reviewed on a correctness standard, and found no error in the tribunal's articulation or application of the governing principles from prior tribunal jurisprudence.

The court concluded that the alleged omissions largely raised governance complaints rather than defects in the sufficiency of minutes, and that the most compelling examples still did not show inadequacy.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs payable to the respondent.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of decisions extending the time to bring disciplinary charges against him, suspending him without pay, and refusing to recuse the Hearing Officer.

The Divisional Court found the extension decision reasonable but held that applying amended suspension provisions mid-proceeding was unfair, reinstating his pay.

The court also removed the Hearing Officer due to a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the protracted procedural history.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

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

The appellant moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order lifting a stay of an eviction order pending appeal.

The stay had been lifted because the appellant failed to comply with interim payment terms requiring him to pay ongoing compensation and arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the review motion, finding no reviewable error in the case management judge's exercise of discretion.

The court held that tenants and unauthorized occupants must pay ongoing compensation and make meaningful payments towards arrears to maintain a stay pending appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the costs portion of a Small Claims Court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding $4,000 in costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 2025 decision 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 parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a January 30, 2026 decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal without costs and ordered that the appeal be expedited, directing the parties to attend a case management teleconference to set a schedule.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing her motion to change child support and the related costs order.

The trial judge had found no material change in circumstances regarding the respondent father's income, declining to impute additional income for alleged undeclared cash, business deductions, or proceeds from the sale of a home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the respondent's income and disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $7,500.

The applicant sought to be relieved of its obligation to pay interest at the contract rate of 11.2% on a prompt payment determination, arguing that its payment of funds into court as security stayed the interest clock.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the payment into court was merely security and did not vary the terms of the determination.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to calculate the balance owing and ordered the applicant to pay the remaining interest accrued, less the income earned on the funds held in court.

The solicitors for the applicant brought a motion to be removed from the record.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment by email, citing the need to retain new counsel and obtain its file from the moving solicitors.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the applicant had sufficient time to address these issues since being served with the motion materials.

Finding that the solicitor-client relationship had broken down and there was no prejudice to the respondent or imminent hearing date, the court granted the motion to remove the solicitors from the record.

No costs were awarded.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner not to continue an inquiry into his request for medical records.

The applicant also sought a sealing order for his application materials.

The court found that the applicant failed to file proper motion materials for the sealing order, instead submitting a voluminous and unorganized microchip.

The court dismissed the motion for a sealing order but directed that the applicant's OHIP number be redacted from the Record of Proceedings.

The court also provided case management directions for the hearing of the judicial review application.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review from an adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

Although the responding party was successful, the court declined to award costs because the responding party failed to deliver a costs outline or bill of costs prior to the hearing, contrary to the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings.