David L. Corbett

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appellant tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant was in substantial rent arrears and had previously signed an agreement to terminate the tenancy, but remained in the premises partly due to the COVID-19 eviction stay.

On consent of the parties, the court ordered the tenant to make an interim rent payment and lifted the stay of eviction effective December 31, 2020, while encouraging the parties to negotiate a global settlement of all outstanding issues.

A case management conference was held in an application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce over 4,700 pages of additional materials that were not included in the tribunal's official record of proceedings.

The court directed that the issue of the proper record be determined at a subsequent motion, outlining the narrow exceptions under which new evidence may be admitted on judicial review.

The court also provided directions regarding the applicant's proposed notice of constitutional question.

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, but mistakenly brought the motion in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

The court summarily dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1.01 because the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction, noting that appeals from the Divisional Court lie to the Court of Appeal with leave.

The court provided guidance to the moving party on how to proceed in the correct court and denied the responding party's request for costs, as the matter was disposed of summarily without requiring assessable costs.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal and lift the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court found that the tenant was in substantial rent arrears, had failed to provide corroborating evidence of alleged rent payments, and had not taken steps to order transcripts or perfect the appeal.

The court ordered the stay of the eviction order lifted, allowing the eviction to proceed, but provided the tenant with a timetable to perfect the appeal if he wished to pursue it.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court challenging a $600 bill from the Ministry of Transportation for unpaid parking tickets.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction over parking infractions, which must be contested in traffic court or through the Ministry's internal processes.

After receiving the applicant's response, the court dismissed the application, finding it was brought in the wrong court and failed to disclose a justiciable issue within the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.

The appellant father appealed a case management judge's decision to adjourn a contested motion brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer until a recusal motion could be heard.

The case management judge had determined the recusal motion was too long to be heard during COVID-19 protocols, resulting in legal paralysis for the family.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the situation inappropriately left the children in limbo, and directed the Regional Senior Judge to appoint a temporary case management judge until the recusal motion is decided.

The self-represented appellant tenant failed to comply with a prior case management order requiring payment of $12,000 to the respondent landlord.

At a subsequent case management teleconference, the tenant confirmed no payment was made and advised of his intention to vacate the premises.

The court ordered the stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board's eviction order to be vacated, allowing the eviction to proceed with priority.

The court also set a schedule for the tenant to perfect the appeal if he chose not to abandon it.

The self-represented applicant objected to the form and content of a draft order reflecting a previous panel decision, arguing that the costs were unreasonable, seeking a grace period for payment, and disputing the interest rate.

The court dismissed the objections, noting that the quantum of costs had already been decided, the panel did not grant a deferral, and the 2.0% post-judgment interest rate was correct under the Courts of Justice Act.

The draft order was approved as to form and content.

The appellant appealed a Master's judgment granted on a motion to enforce a settlement or for summary judgment in a construction lien reference.

The Divisional Court found that while the Master had jurisdiction to hear the motion, the Master erred by granting a Judgment rather than issuing a Report.

This distinction is critical as it determines the proper routes for review and appeal.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Master to issue a Report.

The court held a case management teleconference to set an expedited schedule for an application for judicial review.

The court established deadlines for the application records and factums, and scheduled the hearing for December 3, 2020.

The court also encouraged the parties to agree on interim terms to avoid the necessity of a stay motion.

The applicant, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought to commence three new proceedings in the Divisional Court.

The court directed the applicant to provide a copy of the order granting him leave to commence the applications pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act before giving further directions.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and obtained an automatic stay.

The tenant took no steps to perfect the appeal and accrued over $60,000 in rent arrears.

At a case management conference, the court found the appeal appeared to be an abuse of process to live rent-free.

The court ordered the tenant to pay $12,000 towards arrears and $6,000 monthly as a condition of maintaining the stay pending the appeal, and set a timetable for perfecting the appeal.

The appellant purchased an electric vehicle and later discovered its range was significantly lower than advertised.

He communicated with the respondents for months before discovering they had secretly lowered the advertised range on their website.

The Small Claims Court dismissed his misrepresentation claim on summary judgment, finding it was statute-barred.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the Deputy Judge failed to apply the proper test for summary judgment and that the date of discoverability and potential tolling of the limitation period due to the respondents' conduct were triable issues.

The appellant insurer appealed a tribunal reconsideration decision that found its counsel was in a conflict of interest for acting in both a priority dispute and a benefits dispute against the same insured.

The tribunal also excluded examination under oath transcripts obtained in the priority dispute from being used in the benefits dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal's findings on conflict of interest and the circumvention of procedural protections under section 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule were reasonable.

A case management conference was held to address the self-represented moving party's failure to comply with oral directions given at a prior conference.

The court declined to inquire into her bona fides for missing the deadline and instead imposed a revised schedule for her motions for leave to appeal and to extend the time for leave to appeal.

The court also provided directions regarding the potential introduction of fresh evidence and the responding party's concerns about solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Baltman J. dated November 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,222.67.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 awarded to the successful party on the appeal.

The parties were directed to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

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 and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.