David L. Corbett

The moving party tenant sought a stay of an eviction order pending a review of a previous decision that quashed his appeal.

At the outset, the tenant requested the presiding judge recuse himself based on a prior complaint made to the Canadian Judicial Council, which the judge declined, finding no factual bias.

On the motion for a stay, the court applied the three-part test and found that while the tenant would suffer irreparable harm, there was no arguable merit to the appeal because the tenant had failed to pay rent for a year, constituting an abuse of process.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions regarding the interpretation of a release signed to settle a human rights complaint against the police.

The HRTO had ruled that the release also covered an earlier, separate human rights complaint that was under reserve, and subsequently set aside its merits decision in that earlier complaint.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's interpretation of the release unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the factual matrix and ambiguity in the settlement documents.

The court set aside both HRTO decisions, concluding the release did not apply to the earlier complaint.

The self-represented appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant failed to attend a scheduled case management teleconference after his request for an adjournment due to illness was denied for insufficient medical evidence.

The Divisional Court proceeded in his absence, setting a strict timetable for the tenant to obtain transcripts and perfect the appeal.

To maintain a partial stay preventing the landlord from re-leasing the premises, the court ordered the tenant to pay $1,500 immediately and $1,500 monthly towards rent arrears, which totaled nearly $21,000.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for delay and to lift the statutory stay.

The eviction was originally ordered due to the tenant's violent misconduct.

The tenant failed to appear at the motion, despite having initiated the appeal over a year prior and taking no steps to advance it.

The court found the appeal to be extremely weak and the tenant's conduct indicative of an intention to delay.

The court lifted the statutory stay, dismissed the appeal for delay, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for delay.

The tenant failed to appear at the videoconference hearing despite being contacted by the Registrar and provided with dial-in information.

The court proceeded in the tenant's absence, lifted the stay of the eviction order, and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the landlord.

The self-represented moving party, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion in the Divisional Court for leave to appeal pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, as section 140(3) explicitly requires such applications to be brought in the Superior Court of Justice.

The moving party was also cautioned against communicating with the court without copying opposing counsel.

The moving party sought a stay pending appeal of a final decision ordering the return of the parties' daughter to Nigeria.

The court applied the RJR Macdonald test, finding that while the appeal was weak, it was not frivolous.

The court concluded that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if her appeal rights were frustrated by the child's return, and that the balance of convenience was evenly split.

The stay was granted, and an expedited appeal schedule was ordered to minimize prejudice to the responding party.

The court heard a motion to stay an order for the removal of a child to Nigeria.

As the decision remained under reserve, the court ordered a temporary stay of the removal order pending the release of its full decision.

This case management endorsement addresses an appeal by a self-represented tenant against an eviction order, where the tenant had not paid rent for two years, claiming the unit was uninhabitable.

The court balanced the interests of the parties, allowing the landlord to re-enter and take possession of the unit, while providing the tenant a deadline to remove personal property.

The landlord was prohibited from re-leasing the premises pending further court order, and a future case management teleconference was scheduled to set a schedule for the appeal and consider interim payments or re-leasing restrictions.

The court clarified that the tenant's intention to seek a review or stay did not automatically stay the order.

The mother sought an emergency interim stay of a trial judgment that granted custody of the parties' daughter to the father and permitted him to relocate with the child to Oregon.

The mother requested the stay pending her intended appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to order an interim stay, noting that the appeal likely lies to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court, and that the mother failed to provide evidence that the appeal would be frustrated if the child relocated.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the mother bringing a proper motion for a stay pending appeal.

The self-represented applicant sought to have her application heard on an urgent basis but refused to attend a mandatory case management teleconference, insisting on a panel of three judges.

Due to her failure to attend the scheduled teleconference, the court stayed the application pending further order, with a warning that it may be dismissed if she does not arrange a fresh teleconference by a specified date.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which automatically stayed the eviction.

The court previously directed the tenant to pay $3,000 in rent by a specific date to maintain the stay.

The tenant failed to make the payment, alleging the landlord illegally redirected his mail and intercepted his social benefits.

The court rejected the tenant's unsubstantiated claim and lifted the stay of enforcement, directing the Sheriff to expedite the eviction due to the longstanding non-payment of rent.

The applicant appeared before the court for a show cause hearing regarding civil contempt.

The court accepted the applicant's apology for a prior outburst and declined to make a finding of contempt for his failure to appear.

For a prior finding of civil contempt, the court sentenced the applicant to time served, accounting for 8 days spent in custody on remand.

The applicant remains subject to an order requiring prior judicial permission to commence any proceedings in Ontario.

The appellants, who are self-represented lawyers, appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the appellants failed to meet any branch of the test to set aside the dismissal.

The court noted the appellants' near total abdication of their responsibility to move the case forward for many years, their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and their failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The landlord brought a motion regarding an eviction order against a tenant who had not paid rent for 18 months and owed over $28,000.

The appellant, an occupant of the leased premises but not the tenant, sought to maintain the stay of enforcement while the tenant was hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered a strict payment schedule for arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the stay of enforcement pending the appeal.

The self-represented appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board which had upheld a refusal to investigate his complaints against various physicians.

The court found the appellant's allegations of a broad-based conspiracy and violent crimes to be bizarre, devoid of merit, and not grounded in objective reality.

The appeal was dismissed in writing as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant mother sought to appeal an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice that had dismissed her appeal from an interlocutory custody order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal had previously declined jurisdiction, finding the order to be interlocutory.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that section 19(4) of the Courts of Justice Act precludes an appeal from an interlocutory order of a Superior Court judge made on appeal from an interlocutory order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented applicant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which had dismissed his complaints against medical professionals as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

After reviewing the Record of Proceedings, the Divisional Court found the applicant's allegations to be bizarre and indicative of delusions.

The court issued a second notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why his appeal should not be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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.

The applicant, a residential tenant, was evicted following an order by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

She sought the return of her personal property and a dog from the landlord.

The court ordered the landlord to allow the applicant to retrieve her personal property, as distraint for unpaid rent is not permitted in residential tenancies.

The court declined to order the return of the dog, directing the applicant to pursue the matter in Small Claims Court.

Due to the applicant's history of litigation, the court ordered that she may not commence further proceedings without leave, and issued a notice considering the dismissal of her judicial review application as frivolous and vexatious.