David L. Corbett

The moving party sought an order for the Sheriff to sell a property to satisfy a judgment debt.

The responding party sought an adjournment, arguing the property belonged to his deceased mother's estate.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, noting a 2017 order had already declared the transfer to the mother a sham and ordered the sale.

The court directed the Sheriff's sale to proceed and set a timeline for the occupants to vacate the property.

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

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal due to substantial rent arrears.

Prior to the hearing, the tenant withdrew his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, lifted the stay of the eviction order, and fixed outstanding rent at $10,710.17.

The court also added the new purchaser of the property as a respondent landlord to ensure vacant possession could be enforced.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, a lawyer disbarred in Florida and Illinois for exploiting elderly clients, appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding his disbarment in Ontario.

The Law Society relied on the foreign disciplinary decisions, arguing they should be recognized and given preclusive effect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Panel correctly applied the test for recognizing foreign judgments and issue estoppel, and that the appellant's arguments constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Florida proceedings.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Bielby J. dated September 2, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $4,968.21 to the responding parties.

The moving party solicitor brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $2,750 to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated January 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from decisions directing that a trial on mobility and residential schedule commence shortly.

After being granted one extension of time to file her materials, the moving party requested a further extension.

The Divisional Court denied the further extension, noting the imminent trial date and lack of evidence supporting the need for an extension.

Based on the detailed notice of motion already filed, the court concluded the proposed appeal did not meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The moving party, self-represented, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order granting the responding party control over the sale of the matrimonial home.

During a case management teleconference, the court set a timetable for the exchange of materials for the leave to appeal motion.

The court denied the moving party's request for an oral hearing, directing that the motion for leave to appeal proceed in writing before a panel of three judges, in accordance with standard practice.

A case management endorsement scheduling a motion for leave to appeal from a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision.

The court set the hearing date for October 26, 2020, by Zoom videoconference, and established deadlines for the service and filing of motion materials.

A case management teleconference was held to provide directions for an ongoing family law appeal.

The self-represented appellant, who has a hearing disability, had failed to meet previous deadlines for filing her appeal record.

The court set firm new deadlines for the filing of appeal materials and a brief of proposed fresh evidence.

The court also directed that the appeal be heard in-person to accommodate the appellant's hearing disability, subject to public health conditions.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change a spousal support order.

He argued that the respondent was no longer entitled to compensatory support, that more income should be imputed to her, that his own imputed income of $100,000 was too high, and that an increase in child support constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

The court upheld the findings that the respondent made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient, the appellant failed to prove a material change in his income, and the increased child support did not reduce the respondent's need for support.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision in her favour, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding the location of her property.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01, noting that fresh evidence alone is not a valid ground of appeal and should be raised in the trial court.

The appellant's submissions failed to state an arguable ground of appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, without prejudice to any further steps the appellant might take in the Small Claims Court.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which had upheld the dismissal of his complaints against certain doctors.

The tribunal had found the complaints incapable of proof and likely related to delusions.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 to determine if the appeal should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

After reviewing the applicant's response, the court concluded that the appeal should not be dismissed at this stage due to the opacity of the tribunal's reasons.

A case management teleconference was ordered, and the individual respondents were excused from participating at this stage.

The self-represented applicant sought an immediate hearing of his application on the merits before a single judge of the Superior Court, citing urgency and dire financial consequences.

The case management judge clarified that an application on the merits could not be heard immediately and explained the proper use of section 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court directed that if the applicant required immediate relief, he must bring a motion for interlocutory relief, and maintained the previously ordered schedule for the respondent's motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of WSIAT decisions regarding claims previously pursued through multiple appellate courts.

WSIAT sought to be added as a party and to move to quash or dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court scheduled a motion for WSIAT to be added as a party and to seek dismissal of the application.

The self-represented plaintiff persisted in pursuing two appeals despite the underlying dismissal order having been set aside.

The Divisional Court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the plaintiff to show cause why his appeals should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also required the plaintiff to explain why he should not be precluded from further access to the courts without prior permission, noting his abusive communications and an action commenced against a Superior Court judge.

A case management teleconference was held to address procedural issues in an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The parties could not resolve issues regarding the admissibility of the applicant's materials.

The court directed the respondent to bring a motion to strike the contested materials, to be heard by the panel hearing the underlying application.

The court also set a timetable for the exchange of materials, scheduled the hearing for September 18, 2020, and provided directions on addressing a potential stay of the College's decision pending the court's ruling.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, was given notice that the court was considering dismissing his application under Rule 2.1.01.

Despite directions to provide a list of decisions he sought to review, the applicant responded with voluminous documents, abusive emails, and failed to state a case within the court's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, without prejudice to the applicant filing a properly drafted notice.

A case management teleconference was held to set a timetable for a motion to quash a notice of examination served by the responding party on the moving party.

The court established deadlines for serving motion materials, factums, and completing cross-examinations.

Directions were also provided for the filing of electronic materials and the conduct of the virtual hearing via Zoom.