David L. Corbett

The moving party, The Russian Federation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $7,500 payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule the delivery of appeal materials and a case management teleconference.

The court directed the Registrar to give the applicant notice that it was considering quashing his Notice of Constitutional Question as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the Notice was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior decision, failed to state a proper basis for a constitutional violation, improperly challenged the Charter itself, and was replete with scandalous, abusive, and racist language.

The Notice was quashed, with leave granted to serve a fresh, proper Notice consistent with the court's directions on civility and legal coherence.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal that had been adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court directed that the appeal proceed by video conference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Detailed procedural directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

A case management teleconference was held to provide procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal.

The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, the use of a password-protected drop box for electronic filing, and the formatting of factums and compendiums.

A case management teleconference was held to provide directions for a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Faieta J. The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including the use of a drop box, hyperlinked factums, and factum compendiums.

This is a case management endorsement for an appeal from a decision of the Small Claims Court.

The court directed the appellant to serve its notice of appeal, which would act as a stay of the judgment pending the appeal.

The parties were directed to agree on a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials or arrange a further case management teleconference.

The court also suggested a possible resolution and offered to convene a settlement conference.

The applicant responded to a Rule 2.1.01 notice, denying that the underlying issues of Crown wardship and adoption had been finally disposed of in prior proceedings.

The court directed the respondent Child and Family Services Review Board and Children's Aid Society to provide copies of decisions finally determining those issues.

The applicant will be given a further opportunity to respond once the decisions are provided, and a previously scheduled case management teleconference was cancelled pending the Rule 2.1.01 process.

A case management endorsement setting out the schedule and procedural directions for an upcoming judicial review application to be heard by video conference.

The court provided instructions on the use of a drop box for document filing, formatting requirements for electronic materials, and the timeline for submissions.

The court issued case management directions for an upcoming virtual hearing of an application for judicial review before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The endorsement outlines the procedures for the Zoom video conference, attire requirements, and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums via a password-protected drop box.

The self-represented applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought permission from the case management judge to commence a private prosecution against a police officer regarding a freedom of information request.

The request related to the 2006 tasering of the applicant's brother.

The court denied the request, finding it frivolous and vexatious, and reiterated that the applicant may not pursue further proceedings related to the 2006 incident.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's findings that they engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with three distributions of securities and the resulting sanctions.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review from Vavilov, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact, no errors of mixed fact and law, and no denial of procedural fairness.

The Commission's reasons were adequate and the sanctions, including permanent bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review seeking to overturn Crown wardship and adoption decisions regarding two children, and to obtain pictures and send presents to them.

The court noted that the wardship and adoption decisions were finalized years ago and the recent Board decision only addressed whether the Children's Aid Society provided reasons for denying pictures.

The court directed the Registrar to give notice to the applicant that it is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01, and gave the applicant 15 days to respond.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging a screening decision by the OIPRD not to investigate a complaint against the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant subsequently delivered a Notice of Constitutional Question.

The OIPRD requested that the Notice be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court directed the Registrar to give notice to the applicant that the court is considering quashing the Notice of Constitutional Question, giving the applicant fifteen days to respond.

The applicant requested a case management conference to seek a brief adjournment three days before the scheduled hearing, intending to introduce further materials on the issue of anti-black racism.

The responding parties did not consent.

The case management judge declined to convene a conference at this late stage, noting the matter had been pending for almost two years.

The applicant was permitted to bring a formal motion for an adjournment before the hearing panel.

The self-represented applicant brought an application seeking a mandatory injunction to end the Province of Ontario's use of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant failed to state a legally tenable claim, lacked admissible evidence, and did not establish private or public interest standing.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 37 to vary or set aside the Divisional Court's final costs disposition in the underlying application.

The applicant argued that the court's costs reasons did not address several of her submissions.

The court dismissed the motion without requiring a response from the respondent, finding it manifestly devoid of merit.

The court held that it had considered all submissions in its original costs decision and was now functus officio, noting that any remedy must be sought in the Court of Appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $20,000 to the responding party.

The appellant husband appealed an order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The property was sold prior to the hearing of the appeal.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court awarded the respondent wife full indemnity costs of $20,000, finding the husband's conduct in pursuing the appeal and opposing the sale amounted to bad faith litigation.

The City of Brockville applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of redacted legal fee invoices related to collective bargaining.

The city argued the records were entirely excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion in s. 52(3)2.

Applying the Vavilov reasonableness standard, the Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the connection between labour relations and accounting documents detailing public expenditures was insufficient to trigger the exclusion.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that harmonized wages for a newly merged bargaining unit to the highest pre-existing rate.

The Board of Arbitration based its decision on a well-established pattern of post-merger harmonization in the hospital sector, without analyzing the hospital's arguments that its specific circumstances were unique.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons meeting the minimum standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by Vavilov.

The matter was remitted to the Board.