David L. Corbett

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Following a previous court direction, the applicant provided an amended Notice of Application identifying particulars of the challenged decisions.

The court found that the applicant had identified two reviewable decisions regarding complaints against the Hamilton and Niagara Police Services.

The court directed the applicant to complete his application record, serve the materials on the OIPRD, and request a case management teleconference to proceed.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hughes J. dated June 15, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The child, who was the subject of a high-conflict custody and child protection dispute, ran away and sought assistance from a legal clinic.

The father obtained an urgent motion order restraining the legal clinic and its lawyer from representing or contacting the child.

The legal clinic and the child appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by conflating a child's right to standing in a proceeding with their fundamental right to seek independent legal advice.

The court held that children are entitled to seek legal advice without permission from their parents or the court.

The self-represented applicant sought an urgent hearing in the Divisional Court regarding his application to become an adoptive parent and a related civil claim.

The court noted that the Divisional Court is not a court of original jurisdiction and requires specific decisions to review.

The court issued directions requiring the applicant to identify the specific decisions he wishes to challenge, including the decision-maker, date, file number, and reasons for the challenge, before a file could be opened.

The self-represented tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant was in rent arrears of between $7,000 and $9,000.

During a case management teleconference, the parties reached a settlement.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, the eviction was stayed until after October 31, 2020, and the tenancy was terminated effective October 31, 2020.

The applicant filed applications seeking to set aside Crown wardship orders and requesting police assistance to return the children, who had already been made Crown wards and adopted.

The court noted the applicant had participated in the final wardship proceedings but falsely claimed the children were kidnapped.

The court stayed the fresh application and directed the applicant to show cause why the proceedings should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01, and why a vexatious litigant order should not be made.

The self-represented applicant filed a Notice of Application for judicial review of decisions made by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The court found the revised Notice of Application still lacked necessary particulars, specifically failing to identify the exact decisions being challenged.

The court directed the applicant to revise the Notice of Application a third time to include the dates of the complaints, the dispositions by the respondent, and the legal bases for the challenges.

The respondent in a Small Claims Court appeal brought a motion for case management directions due to the appellant's delay in moving the appeal forward since January 2020.

The Divisional Court imposed a strict timetable, ordering the appellant to order trial transcripts and perfect the appeal by specified dates.

The court directed that failure to meet the deadlines would allow the respondent to seek an order dismissing the appeal.

The tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Divisional Court was unable to issue a formal certificate of stay.

The court issued this endorsement to serve as sufficient evidence of the automatic stay under Rule 63.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure pending the determination of the appeal.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint against PayPal Canada.

At a case management conference, the court found the Notice of Application defective on its face for failing to name PayPal as a party, failing to specify the alleged legal errors, and improperly claiming freestanding damages.

The court struck the Notice of Application but granted the applicant leave to deliver a fresh amended Notice of Application.

A case management teleconference was held regarding two related applications involving Indigenous child and family services.

Counsel for the moving party did not attend due to an administrative error by court staff.

The court noted ongoing discussions to convert one of the applications into an action and directed the parties to resolve the issue or bring a motion.

The court also addressed scheduling, noting that a return date before the end of 2020 would require proof of readiness and urgency, and encouraged the parties to agree on a schedule.

A case management teleconference was held to set the schedule and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of decisions by the human rights tribunal.

The court provided directions for a virtual videoconference hearing, document filing via a drop box, and deadlines for serving materials.

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

The hearing was scheduled for November 25, 2020, via ZOOM videoconference.

The court provided detailed directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The respondent indicated it would raise a substantive defence that the matter is not properly before the Divisional Court and should be pursued through an Objection Officer and appealed to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board but failed to perfect the appeal.

During a case management teleconference, the self-represented parties agreed to dismiss the appeal without costs on consent.

The court granted a stay of enforcement of the eviction order until September 30, 2020, to allow the tenants additional time to relocate amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case management endorsement setting the timetable and filing directions for two motions for leave to appeal brought by the moving parties.

The motions are to proceed together in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal from a decision dismissing an appeal of an interlocutory order discharging a certificate of pending litigation.

The court set a timetable for the written motion to proceed before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The moving party also indicated an intention to move for a stay, and the court directed the parties to attempt to agree on interim terms to avoid a stay motion, failing which an urgent case management conference could be arranged.

A case management teleconference was held to set the schedule and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of an appraisal award.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 1, 2020, by Zoom videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Deadlines were established for the service of materials, cross-examinations, and factums, along with specific instructions for electronic filing via a drop box.

The court issued a case management endorsement setting the schedule and procedural directions for an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appeal was scheduled to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court via videoconference.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, electronic filing via a drop box, and the use of compendiums.

The moving party husband brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Audet J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit and was an unjustifiable waste of resources.

Costs were awarded to the responding party wife on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision.

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