David L. Corbett

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of J. Steele J. dated July 7, 2021.

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

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.

The plaintiff sought judgment for defamation and damages, as well as the conclusion of contempt proceedings against the defendants.

The court found that the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and granted judgment against the defendants based on previous findings.

The plaintiff was awarded $41,600 in special damages for loss of fee income.

The contempt proceedings were adjourned due to the defendants' failure to appear, and a bench warrant was issued for their arrest with discretion.

The appellant contractor appealed an order discharging a substantial portion of its claim for lien for failing to perfect it within the statutory deadline under the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued that the deadline should be tolled due to promissory estoppel.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim for lien was registered on time but the certificate of action was registered late.

The Court agreed that the respondents made no representations that would give rise to promissory estoppel, and noted that allowing promissory estoppel to defeat strict statutory deadlines could undermine the certainty required by other stakeholders such as lenders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $9,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision finding his child in need of protection and placing the child in the extended care of the Society.

During the trial, the father brought a non-suit motion at the close of the Society's case.

The trial judge failed to put the father to his election on whether to call evidence, reserved her decision, and subsequently ruled on a final basis that the child was in need of protection before the father could present his case.

The Divisional Court held this was a fundamental procedural error that deprived the father of his right to be heard on the protection issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The self-represented appellant moved to set aside the Divisional Court's decision dismissing his appeal from a Law Society of Ontario disbarment order, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the presiding judge.

The appellant argued that the judge's prior refusal to allow a lengthy factum, the scheduling of the appeal, and the conduct during the hearing demonstrated bias.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that routine procedural directions, standard scheduling practices, and normal appellate questioning do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her claims as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The Divisional Court issued a notice considering dismissing the appeal on the same grounds, noting the claims were barred by issue estoppel and constituted improper follow-on litigation.

Finding that the appellant was litigating vexatiously and attempting to relitigate issues already decided by previous courts, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal without costs.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision ordering it to pay $185,000 in liquidated damages for failing to produce documents in a timely manner during a grievance process under a construction industry collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness, as the collective agreement mandated strict timelines and specific penalties for non-compliance.

The application was dismissed, save for a mathematical calculation error regarding the exclusion of weekends and holidays, which was remitted to the arbitrator on consent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McLean J. dated May 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving parties, payable at the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party, Sota Dental Studio Inc., brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The moving party, self-represented, sought a stay of proceedings and costs orders pending decisions on his multiple motions for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the stay request without requiring responding materials, finding that the moving party had failed to comply with previous court directions and timelines, thereby disentitling himself to equitable relief.

The court set final deadlines for the moving party to serve and upload his motion materials for leave to appeal, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The self-represented moving party sought to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that declined to extend the time to seek leave to appeal.

The moving party claimed to have mailed a notice of motion shortly after the decision, but the court had no record of it.

Acknowledging the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the moving party's circumstances, the court permitted the motion to review to proceed before a panel of three judges, subject to strict terms regarding deadlines and the materials that could be filed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Toronto District School Board's decision to reduce the number of French immersion senior kindergarten classes at Palmerston Avenue Junior Public School from two to one.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to reallocate programs did not affect the rights, interests, or privileges of the applicants, and therefore did not attract a duty of procedural fairness.

The court also found that the Board's decision was substantively reasonable and that the Board did not create a legitimate expectation that a different process would be followed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pierce J. dated May 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The moving party, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 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 and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,969.69.

The moving parties sought an interlocutory stay of an order requiring them to disclose identifying information of primary market investors, pending their motion for leave to appeal that order.

The Divisional Court granted the stay on an interim basis, finding that the motion for leave to appeal had some prospect of success, the moving parties would suffer irreparable harm if the disclosure was made before the leave motion was decided, and the balance of convenience favoured a brief delay.

The court emphasized that interim stays pending leave to appeal should be addressed expeditiously to minimize prejudice.

The applicants, environmental advocacy organizations, brought applications for judicial review challenging the failure of various Ontario Ministers to conduct public consultations under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) before enacting the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020.

The applicants argued that the Ministers acted unreasonably by failing to post proposed amendments to several statutes on the Environmental Registry.

The Divisional Court dismissed most of the challenges, finding the Ministers' decisions reasonable or shielded by retroactive legislation.

However, the court granted the application in part, issuing a declaration that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted unreasonably and unlawfully by failing to post proposed amendments respecting Ministerial Zoning Orders under the Planning Act prior to implementation.

The self-represented applicant, who has a psychiatric disability, sought leave to appeal multiple interlocutory orders, including an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian and an order refusing to appoint amicus curiae.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions to provide copies of the impugned decisions and to follow procedural rules.

The Divisional Court issued directions and notices under Rule 2.1.01, requiring the applicant to show cause why her motions for leave to appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.