David L. Corbett

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. dated October 20, 2021.

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 applicant brought a motion for leave to file fresh evidence for an upcoming judicial review hearing.

The court had previously struck the applicant's affidavit containing the same evidence on a motion by the respondent.

The court dismissed the current motion on its own initiative under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it to be vexatious and an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that had already been decided or ought to have been raised previously.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Taylor J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that the interlocutory decision does not preclude any party from seeking relief on any issues in the case pursuant to Rules 20 and 21.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant, a municipal councillor, appealed a decision declaring her seat vacant for breaching the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The application judge found she intentionally used her position to influence council regarding a fire department service charge levied against her son, and failed to leave a closed meeting where the matter was discussed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the application judge's findings on liability or the imposition of the penalty.

The self-represented moving party had four pending matters in the Divisional Court relating to underlying family law proceedings.

Because a final trial judgment had recently been rendered, the court issued notices under Rule 2.1 indicating it was considering dismissing several of the interlocutory appeals and review motions as moot.

The court also provided case management directions regarding a motion for leave to appeal a costs order, a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring prior leave to bring further motions, and the moving party's proposed motion seeking the judge's recusal.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party on an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The responding party sought to introduce documents not in the tribunal's record, claiming in her affidavit that she had served them prior to the tribunal hearing.

The court found the affidavit to be demonstrably false, as several attached documents did not exist at the time of the hearing.

The motion was granted, the affidavit was struck, and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The self-represented appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action against Winners and the Toronto Police Services Board arising from the detention and arrest of the appellant for shoplifting.

The appellants alleged false arrest, assault, and spoilation of video evidence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions that the security personnel reasonably believed a theft occurred and lawfully detained the appellant.

The court also rejected arguments regarding delay in calling police, spoilation of evidence, and the admissibility of hearsay statements in medical records.

The self-represented tenant brought a motion for an extension and a stay of enforcement of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court granted the motion on strict terms, requiring the tenant to pay current rent and a monthly amount towards arrears.

The court noted the tenant's history of failing to follow through on payment plans but granted a final opportunity to preserve the tenancy, emphasizing that any missed payments would result in the stay being lifted without further review.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory evidentiary ruling by the Licence and Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that excluded surveillance video evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court held that the proceedings were premature, as interlocutory rulings in administrative proceedings should generally not be appealed or reviewed until a final decision is rendered, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant sought judicial review of a police service's decision to disclose non-conviction information on a vulnerable sector check.

The applicant argued the reconsideration process was procedurally unfair because the police did not disclose the underlying information relied upon to make the decision, preventing the applicant from knowing the case to meet.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that procedural fairness required the police to provide access to the relevant information before the applicant submitted written submissions for the reconsideration.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for a new reconsideration by a different decision-maker.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court noted that the motion below was on consent and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a boundary fence dispute.

The appellant argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Line Fences Act governed such disputes.

The Divisional Court noted that while the City of Toronto purported to opt out of the Line Fences Act, its bylaw did not establish an alternative scheme for apportioning costs as required by the Act.

The court adjourned the matter and directed that notice be given to the City of Toronto to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of its opt-out bylaw.

The appellant appealed an order striking its Notice of Objection under the Repair and Storage Liens Act and directing the release of a customized transport truck to the respondent.

The appellant argued that the work performed was 'manufacturing' rather than 'repair' and that federal regulations prohibited the vehicle's release.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the work constituted 'repair' under the Act and rejecting the argument that federal regulations superseded the provincial statutory remedy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed the Ontario College of Nurses' decision not to further investigate her complaint against a nurse.

The complaint, alleging falsified medical records at a fertility clinic, was made a decade after the events.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the application as frivolous and vexatious.

Finding no arguable error in HPARB's reliance on contemporaneous medical records over the applicant's decade-old personal recollection, the court dismissed the application.

The applicant, a city councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the city council to suspend his remuneration for 270 days based on a report by the integrity commissioner finding he engaged in sexual harassment.

The applicant alleged bias against both the commissioner and the council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the claims against the commissioner, finding he acted fairly and reasonably accommodated the applicant's health issues.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias against the city council due to public statements and conduct by members before the investigation concluded.

The court quashed the council's sanction decision but, rather than remitting it, imposed the same 270-day suspension itself due to the severity of the misconduct and the lack of an unbiased decision-maker.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and obtained an interim stay.

The landlord raised the issue of ongoing rent arrears.

The tenant claimed a hearing disability prevented him from participating electronically and later claimed he was unaware of the rent arrears.

The court found the tenant's claims lacked credibility and that he was likely abusing the process.

The court ordered the tenant to pay $18,840 in arrears into court by December 22, 2021, and ongoing monthly rent of $1,570, failing which the stay of eviction would be lifted.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review challenging mid-hearing procedural rulings made by the Law Society Tribunal.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering the dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to prematurity.

The applicant failed to identify any exceptional circumstances justifying interference with the ongoing administrative process.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature and an abuse of process designed to interrupt a hearing nearing completion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an endorsement of Audet J. dated October 14, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $4,520 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had dismissed her appeal from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's refusal to investigate her complaint against a doctor.

The doctor had attended the applicant's home for an independent medical examination on behalf of an insurer, but the applicant refused to participate.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the doctor provided no medical services and owed no duty to the applicant.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing a motion to correct the plaintiff's name in the title of proceedings based on misnomer.

The Associate Justice found that the defendants would not have reasonably understood that the proposed new plaintiff was the intended plaintiff, as the defendants had expressly refused to contract with that entity.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's factual findings or application of the objective test for misnomer.

The appeal was dismissed.