David L. Corbett

The moving party sought leave to extend the time to seek leave to appeal a security for costs order that resulted in his answer being struck out.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, finding the moving party had the requisite intention to appeal and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit given the severe consequences of the underlying orders.

Leave to appeal was granted, and the underlying orders were stayed pending the disposition of the appeal.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her motion to add a private snow removal contractor as a defendant in a slip and fall action against the City of Toronto.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence by not inquiring about a contractor earlier.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that without a specific trigger or reason to be put on notice, a plaintiff has no free-standing duty to inquire whether a municipality contracted out its snow removal.

The claim against the contractor was not discoverable until the City disclosed its involvement, and therefore was not statute-barred.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for an order sealing the patient records of a complainant in a physician's appeal of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the College had not sought a sealing order at first instance before the HPARB.

The court held that the HPARB should control its own processes and develop its own jurisprudence on protective orders, and declined to permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where the records were not highly sensitive and the complainant raised no privacy concerns.

The applicant sought to challenge an interlocutory case conference decision of the lower court, making scandalous and vexatious allegations against the presiding judge.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, which failed to address the court's concerns and repeated the scandalous allegations, the court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from two prior decisions, including an order restricting his ability to seek fee waivers.

The court had previously issued case management directions requiring the moving party to provide contact information, address the fee waiver issue, and set a deadline for serving motion materials, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The moving party failed to comply with the directions, aside from providing an email address.

Consequently, the court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal as abandoned.

The self-represented applicant sought to commence an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The application was brought out of time.

Despite multiple case management directions instructing the applicant to bring a proper motion for an extension of time, the applicant failed to do so and instead submitted numerous deficient documents.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and rejected a constitutional challenge alleging that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 violates the freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by failing to provide a right to strike.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision on the unfair labour practice was reasonable and its conclusion on the constitutional issue was correct, as it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fraser.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy at a retirement residence for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex through abusive behaviour towards staff and residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB's application of the substantial interference test.

The Court also rejected arguments that the LTB hearing was procedurally unfair or that the LTB failed to properly consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when ordering the eviction.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Gibson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

The moving party sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders.

A non-lawyer claiming to be an Indigenous Grand Chief purported to represent the moving party without court authorization, filing vexatious materials and refusing to follow case management directions based on claims of Indigenous sovereignty.

The court barred the unauthorized representative from acting in the Divisional Court without leave, dismissed the representative's purported motion to review case management decisions under Rule 2.1.01, and ordered the moving party to personally comply with court directions or face dismissal of his motions for leave to appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for a years-long campaign of internet harassment and defamation.

The plaintiffs sought orders to remove new defamatory publications that came to their attention after the original summary judgment motions were argued.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and raising other procedural objections.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, holding that while it is functus officio regarding the claims decided in the judgment, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders.

The motion was granted.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation regarding the valuation of his property.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled ZOOM hearing and requested an in-person 'Chancery' hearing, arguing he was not liable for property taxes as a 'natural person'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion due to the applicant's failure to attend and found the proposed appeal was an abuse of process and devoid of merit.

The court also imposed restrictions on the applicant's ability to commence further proceedings regarding property taxes without prior judicial permission.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, sought an extension of time to appeal a costs order made more than two years prior.

Despite multiple directions from the court explaining the test for an extension and providing opportunities to file proper materials, the moving party failed to do so.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the motion as it could not possibly succeed.

The moving party was also barred from bringing further motions in the Divisional Court regarding the underlying file without prior permission.