David L. Corbett

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 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 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 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.

In a case management endorsement, the court provided procedural directions to a self-represented applicant regarding disputes over the accuracy of transcripts and the Record of Proceedings.

The court ordered the applicant to prepare detailed lists of alleged errors and proposed corrections, and directed the respondents to reply to those lists.

The court noted that the intense case management required by the self-represented applicant's lack of trust in the respondents would inevitably cause delays.

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.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an application against the Ontario Ombudsman without obtaining prior leave from a judge, in breach of a court order.

At a show cause hearing, the applicant argued the prior order was illegal and that a letter he sent to the judge constituted a good faith request for leave.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, finding the applicant in contempt of court.

The court imposed further restrictions requiring the applicant to obtain permission from a Case Management Judge before even seeking leave to commence future proceedings, and adjourned sentencing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from an order dismissing its appeal of an interlocutory order that discharged a certificate of pending litigation.

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

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal from an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

An interim stay previously ordered was terminated.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board to prevent her eviction prior to March 2021.

The parties had informally agreed to delay the eviction due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the landlord took steps to preserve his ability to enforce the order within the 12-month statutory limit.

On consent, the Divisional Court ordered the appeal stayed until March 31, 2021, at which point the appeal would be dismissed and the landlord could enforce the eviction order without having to restart proceedings.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the respondent employer's decision to close its Windsor plant.

The union argued that the plant closure violated a 'sole sourcing' promise made by the employer in exchange for wage concessions.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it relied on an improper inference drawn from rejected proposed contract language, failing to consider the overall context of the negotiations.

The application was granted, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and the grievance was remitted back to the arbitrator for a fresh determination.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying an adjournment and deeming his motion to oppose a certificate of assessment abandoned.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding his difficulties retaining counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge made no error in denying the adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to file materials or comply with court orders over an 11-month period.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is available against collectors and custodians of private information when that information is improperly accessed by a third party, even if the defendants allegedly acted recklessly.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $11,300, left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellant, Halton Hills Hydro Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board refusing a discretionary rate adjustment for operation, maintenance, and administration costs of a new transformer station between five-year rate-setting intervals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the Board's conclusion that the requested costs were not sufficiently material to justify an exception to its general policy.

The self-represented appellant sought to adjourn the scheduled date for his appeal and requested to present new evidence and call a witness.

The court denied the adjournment because the appellant failed to explain why he was unavailable on the scheduled date, noting that court obligations take priority.

The court also advised that fresh evidence on appeal is subject to a strict test and must be presented in written form, not through live testimony.

The applicant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an application against the Ontario Ombudsman without obtaining the required leave of the court.

The court ordered the applicant to appear at a show cause hearing to address why he should not be held in contempt for breaching the prior order.

The application was immediately stayed pursuant to the vexatious litigant order, and will be dismissed if leave is not obtained.

The self-represented appellant landlord advised the respondent tenant that she did not intend to pursue the appeal.

During a case management teleconference, the appellant confirmed this position.

The appeal was dismissed on consent.

The respondent's request for costs was denied because the appeal was never perfected and no responding materials were filed.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an application regarding the sale of a property.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 11, 2020, and provided directions for the filing of materials via Caselines or a file-sharing platform.

The respondent agreed not to close the sale of the property prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

The court also provided directions for a potential motion for security for costs.

During a case management teleconference for an appeal, the self-represented appellant failed to attend.

The appellant had previously requested an in-person hearing.

The court noted that in-person hearings were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ordered the appeal to proceed by videoconference.

A hearing date was set, with instructions for the appellant on how to request an adjournment if necessary.

A case management endorsement setting the timetable for an expedited appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appeal concerns the scheduling and hearing of a recusal motion and an outstanding motion by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court established deadlines for serving appeal records and factums, and scheduled the appeal to be heard by Zoom videoconference.