David L. Corbett

The appellant purchased commercial property subject to an easement, with a vendor take-back mortgage that would be reduced by $442,000 if the vendor failed to register a valid release of the easement within one year.

The vendor obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it two days before the deadline, but the order was subsequently appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the purchaser's appeal, holding that while a court order can satisfy the requirement for a release, an order subject to subsisting appeal rights does not provide the bargained-for certainty of good title.

The purchaser was therefore entitled to the $442,000 reduction in the mortgage principal.

The applicant, a family health team, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision to terminate its funding agreement without cause.

The applicant alleged the termination was made in bad faith to cover up fraud by the applicant's former board of directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the funding agreement was a private law contractual matter not subject to judicial review.

The court applied the Air Canada factors and concluded the decision lacked a sufficient public character.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of bad faith or improper purpose by the Minister.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding him a related employer to his defunct company, binding him to current collective agreements, and imposing a fine for breach.

The applicant had operated a unionized masonry company until a 2007 car accident left him unable to work, leading to personal bankruptcy and the company's dissolution.

Ten years later, he resumed work as a sole proprietor.

The Divisional Court quashed the OLRB decisions, finding it unreasonable that the Board failed to consider whether a related employer declaration served a valid labour relations purpose given the decade-long hiatus and the applicant's circumstances.

The self-represented appellants, claiming to be tenants, sought to appeal an order made between a second mortgagee and the property owners.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting the appellants were not parties to the underlying proceeding and had no standing to appeal.

The court held that any recourse the appellants might have should be pursued via a motion in the Superior Court of Justice at first instance.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The self-represented applicant wrote to the court requesting anonymization, a publication ban under the Child and Family Services Act, and an amendment to the title of proceedings for a previous decision that dismissed her application for judicial review as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.

The court refused all requests, noting that the previous decision did not disclose any sensitive personal information about children that would warrant a publication ban.

The court emphasized that the open court principle strongly militated against anonymizing the decision, as the applicant's litigation misconduct should remain publicly accessible.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented moving party sought to proceed with various motions for leave to appeal and a motion to review a previous order, which were subject to scrutiny under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal a costs order to proceed, finding the explanation for delay sufficient.

However, the court required further particulars regarding the delay in seeking a review of another judge's order before deciding the Rule 2.1 issue.

The court noted the moving party's history of vexatious behaviour, outstanding costs orders, and reliance on a fee waiver, while providing directions for the service and filing of motion materials.

The appellant sought to appeal three 2019 Small Claims Court decisions but failed to bring a motion for an extension of time.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Instead of responding with written submissions as required, the appellant's counsel filed a motion for leave to appeal, mistakenly identifying the case management judge as the Small Claims Court judge.

The court deferred its decision, granting the appellant a further 10 days to provide proper written submissions responding to the Rule 2.1.01 notice.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without requiring responding materials.

No costs were ordered.

The moving party sought an extension of time to review interlocutory rulings and a costs order made by a judge who had previously denied their motion for leave to appeal a Land Planning Appeal Tribunal decision regarding a new hospital site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the interlocutory rulings merged with the final decision denying leave, rendering them moot.

The court held that the proposed review was an abuse of process attempting to collaterally attack a final decision, and that the costs order was well within the motions judge's discretion.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal three interlocutory orders made by the case management judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the order for production of documents, awarding costs to the responding parties.

The court granted leave to appeal the order requiring an assessment of capacity to instruct counsel and stayed that order pending the appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal the suspension of counsel's appointment pending the assessment was dismissed.

The moving party, AXA Insurance Canada, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Roger J. dated January 20, 2020.

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

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs award.

The motion was heard in writing and dismissed without costs.

The applicant father sought directions to enforce a previous court order requiring the respondent mother to return their children to Nigeria.

The mother, who had unlawfully abducted the children to Canada, failed to cooperate with travel arrangements, including required COVID-19 testing and Yellow Fever vaccinations.

The court ordered the Waterloo Regional Police to take the children to obtain the necessary medical procedures to facilitate their return flight, noting the mother's distress but emphasizing the need for compliance with the final orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2020.

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 moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 17, 2020, and to stay an order dated February 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The appellant, a defendant in a defamation action, appealed a motions judge's decision refusing her leave to amend her statement of defence.

The motions judge had found the proposed amendments were properly pleaded and caused no prejudice, but concluded the motion itself was an abuse of process because the appellant had previously sought broad disclosure without particularizing her defence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 26 is broadly permissive and the motion to amend was not an abuse of process, as the amendments were integral to the defence and caused no prejudice.

The court permitted the amendments but upheld the motions judge's adverse costs award against the appellant for her prior litigation conduct.

The applicant brought an application which was heard on an expedited schedule.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application with no order as to costs, noting that full reasons would follow in due course.

The moving party, an insurance company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decisions of the motion judge dated January 4, 2021, and January 21, 2021.

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

The parties were directed to contact the court to schedule a case conference.