David L. Corbett

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision upholding an order to pay statutory termination and severance pay to a former employee.

The employee had been terminated for off-duty, intoxicated misconduct involving threats to a co-worker.

The employer argued this constituted 'wilful misconduct' exempting the employee from statutory entitlements.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the OLRB's contextual assessment of the misconduct—considering the employee's 14-year tenure, lack of prior discipline, and intoxication—was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party, UAP Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of E. M. Morgan J. released July 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding parties Robert Dinino and Lawrence Tyler Bacchus, and $7,500 to the responding parties Yako Hirmiz (Jacob) Yako, Sabah (Sam) Yako, and Sako Auto Parts Inc.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 13, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated July 30, 2021.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

The self-represented appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that preserved her tenancy but denied her request to be re-admitted to the rental unit pending an urgent hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting that the court does not ordinarily hear appeals from interlocutory LTB orders and the appeal would be moot before it could be heard.

After reviewing the appellant's submissions, the court stayed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01, finding it premature and of no practical effect.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decision of Cavanagh J. dated August 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the agreed amount of $20,000 payable by the responding parties.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to settle a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and to schedule an expedited appeal date.

The applicant sought to have an application for judicial review heard by a single judge pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act due to urgency.

The court directed that the matter be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court, noting that with the advent of CaseLines, ZOOM, and coordinated case management, expedited panel hearings can be arranged for matters arising anywhere in Ontario.

The court clarified that recourse to s. 6(2) should only be had in truly exigent circumstances where administrative oversight cannot accommodate an urgent panel hearing.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for a sealing order for parts of the record on an application for judicial review, co-extensive with its own prior disclosure order.

The respondent complainant contested sealing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted the sealing order as requested, noting that the tribunal's disclosure order remains effective unless varied or set aside, and that no party had objected to it in the proceedings below.

The defendants brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal of an order requiring the plaintiff's corporate representative to answer refusals and re-attend an examination.

The plaintiff argued the order was final because the representative was a non-party.

The Divisional Court held that an order against a corporate representative put forward by a party is interlocutory, not final, as the representative is not a true stranger to the litigation.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a decision dismissing her claim for equalization of net family property.

The motion judge had dismissed the equalization claim because it was brought more than six years after the date of separation, rendering it statute-barred under s. 7(3) of the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court found that while the appellant had a reasonable explanation for her delay in filing the appeal in the correct court, the proposed appeal lacked merit because the separation date was res judicata and the limitation period had clearly expired.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant, an advocacy group for strippers, brought a judicial review application challenging COVID-19 regulations that temporarily closed strip clubs in Stage 2 and Stage 3 areas.

Before the application was heard, the impugned regulations were revoked and replaced, allowing strip clubs to operate with safety requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case on the merits as the live controversy had ended and there was no cogent reason to depart from the general rule against hearing moot cases.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Somji J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay agreed costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to arrange an appeal schedule.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal, granted a stay pending the appeal, and ordered the hearing of the appeal to be expedited.

Costs of $5,000 were left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Diamond dated June 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the agreed amount of $6,352.86 to the responding party.

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.

The parties failed to comply with a case management direction requiring them to upload an agreement on costs or costs outlines prior to the hearing.

The responding party requested to submit an offer to settle prior to the costs award.

The court declined to permit further materials on costs, emphasizing that parties cannot disregard case management directions and that it is inefficient for leave panels to reconstitute to consider costs.

The court fixed costs of the motion at $2,500 payable by the moving party to the responding party.

The applicant commenced an application that was abandoned after early case management teleconferences.

The respondent sought approximately $8,000 in costs for the abandoned application.

The Divisional Court noted that its practice is not to award costs for case management attendances unless there is litigation misconduct, and the case management judge had not awarded costs.

Finding the respondent's costs claim unreasonable and excessive for the minor steps taken, the court declined to award any costs for the abandoned application or the costs motion.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable by the moving party to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Chalmers J. dated June 28, 2021, and for leave to appeal.

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