David L. Corbett

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.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $6,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Czutrin J. dated January 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award to the Divisional Court.

The court determined that under the Arbitration Act, 1991, jurisdiction over the appeal lies with the Superior Court of Justice, not the Divisional Court.

Finding the jurisdictional error to be an oversight, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto without costs.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought actions against the defendants for a prolonged campaign of internet defamation and harassment related to his involvement in art forgery litigation.

After the defendants' statements of defence were struck and they were noted in default, the court held a damages hearing.

The court found the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in general damages, $100,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, plus costs.

The court also addressed the defendants' ongoing defiance of court orders and unexecuted bench warrants for contempt.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Price J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Associate Justice C. Wiebe.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,667.93 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Lafrenière J. dated January 21, 2022.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Tranquilli J. dated January 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,857.16.

The applicant sought judicial review of a government procurement Request for Bids (RFB) for identity card production and the subsequent dismissal of its bid dispute complaint.

The applicant argued that the RFB's domestic production requirement violated the non-discrimination provisions of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found that the administrative decision dismissing the complaint was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the test for necessity under the public safety exception of CETA.

The Court quashed both the decision and the RFB, finding that the domestic production requirement was not justified on the record.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to confirm an Associate Justice's order that enforced a default payment provision of $286,061.10 under a settlement agreement.

The respondent's late payment was due to junior counsel being distracted by her wedding and honeymoon.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the Associate Justice erred in enforcing the default provision.

The appeal and request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $2,500 on consent, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the respondents' tenancy in a rooming house.

The landlord argued the tenancy was exempt under s. 5(i) of the Act because she occasionally stayed in unoccupied rooms and later moved into the building.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the relationship is characterized at the time it commenced.

The court affirmed that occasional stays do not constitute 'living in the building' for the purposes of the shared-facility exemption.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him for the purpose of demolishing the rental unit.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing after his lawyer left, leaving him self-represented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness because the tenant did not request an adjournment, participated appropriately in the hearing, and the LTB had no duty to inquire into his representation status.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence regarding the tenant's subjective state of mind and ordered costs to the landlord.

The moving parties' motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of various orders was dismissed as abandoned.

The court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Receiver.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to agree upon a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.