David L. Corbett

Air Canada applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance.

The arbitrator had directed Air Canada to stop applying the off-duty status provision of the collective agreement unless it established a discontinuation of its revenue operations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that Air Canada failed to establish a continued 90% reduction in business as of January 2021 was reasonable and supported by the record.

In a high-conflict family law dispute, the self-represented moving party sought to challenge several temporary orders made by various judges.

During a case management conference, the court scheduled motions for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal two of the orders (relating to children's schooling and the sale of a rental property).

The court refused to schedule an extension motion for a third order excluding the moving party from a jointly-owned business, noting the request was vexatious as an earlier motion for leave had been abandoned.

The employer applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding its sick leave administration practices.

The employer had retained a third-party administrator and required employees to communicate with it, complete comprehensive medical forms for absences over five days, and use a specific form for return-to-work accommodations.

The Arbitrator found these practices violated the collective agreement, which specified communication with supervisors and limited the scope of medical information required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be reasonable and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence protecting employee privacy.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a 2016 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against his former employer.

The application was brought more than five years after the HRTO decision.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to mental illness and recently recalled memories.

The court dismissed the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the delay excessive, the explanations incredible, and the proceeding an abuse of process that ignored the principle of finality in litigation.

The International Trademark Association (ITA) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding an interlocutory injunction restraining the use of a disputed trademark.

The ITA sought to make submissions on the meaning and effect of recent amendments to Canada's trademark legislation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ITA's proposed arguments focused on the final disposition of legal questions that would be decided at trial, rather than the test for an interlocutory injunction which was the subject of the appeal.

The court concluded the intervention would distract rather than assist the appeal court.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

A related motion to strike fresh evidence was dismissed as moot, as the court concluded it would not grant leave even if the evidence were admitted.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting her a rent abatement, which the respondent had already paid.

The moving party filed the motion over two years after the deadline, arguing the Limitations Act applied or the Residential Tenancies Act deadline breached the Charter.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no intention to appeal within the deadline, no good explanation for the delay, and significant prejudice to the respondent who had sold the property years prior.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions dismissing her complaints against a college.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found the application regarding the 2017 complaint was significantly out of time with no reasonable prospect for an extension, and dismissed that portion of the application.

For the 2020 complaint, the court directed the applicant to amend her pleadings to name the proper respondents before proceeding.

The self-represented appellant, who was found to be a party under a disability and represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, sought leave to appeal various orders including a settlement approval.

The Court of Appeal previously quashed her appeal for lack of standing.

The appellant then brought a motion in the Divisional Court.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice, noting the court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal and that the appellant lacked standing to appeal anything other than the order appointing the litigation guardian.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1, without prejudice to the appellant bringing a proper motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the appointment order.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation in a share purchase agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding fraudulent misrepresentation and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the appellant's failure to disclose material facts about the company's financial status and inability to issue free-trading shares.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding on the date of discoverability for limitation purposes.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating its intention to dismiss the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's history of vexatious conduct and her reliance on her husband, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and ordered that the appellant is prohibited from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a 2015 Labour Relations Board decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering dismissing the application for inordinate delay.

The applicant argued his delay was due to PTSD and memory loss.

The court found the applicant had been actively litigating other matters during the delay period and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or establish a timely intention to appeal.

The motion to extend time was dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating it was considering dismissing the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The appellant did not respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and prohibited the appellant from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.

The appellant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an appeal without obtaining the required leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant claimed to have received legal advice that leave was not required for an appeal.

The court rejected this argument, noting that leave is required to bring an appeal.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and a subsequent request for a panel review was denied as the decision was made pursuant to Rule 2.1.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension and other remedial terms.

The appellant had been duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics due to her failure to take basic professional steps.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review and found no error in principle, concluding that the penalty was not clearly unfit and was well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the colossal scale of the professional shortcomings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

In a case management endorsement for an appeal, the court addressed several procedural issues.

The appellants' Notice of Constitutional Question was struck out as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.

The court also settled the orders of the late Associate Justice Muir, as he was unable to do so, and provided directions for settling the orders of Associate Justice Jolley.

The appellants abandoned their motion to adduce fresh evidence, and the respondent's motion for security for costs was heard and taken under reserve.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural decision of the Fire Safety Commission regarding jurisdiction and mootness, arguing that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario could review the Commission's decisions and that the Commission failed to accommodate her health issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, applying the principle of prematurity which precludes appeals of interlocutory tribunal decisions.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of the record considered by the DIOC and to determine whether materials provided to but not reviewed by the DIOC form part of the record on judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that the admissibility of evidence before the DIOC is a matter for the panel hearing the judicial review.

The court directed that unreviewed materials be provided to the panel in a sealed envelope.

The court also granted consent redactions sought by the DIOC and granted interim redactions sought by the applicant to protect her privacy interests pending the panel's decision, applying the Sherman Estate test.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Krawchenko J. dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, 1350057 Ontario Ltd.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.