David L. Corbett

A case management conference was held to schedule two motions for leave to appeal a decision appointing carriage counsel in a class action.

The court established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, directed the creation of a joint record and electronic drop box, and ordered that the motions proceed in writing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The Appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting or refusing to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The central issue was the second branch of the capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, specifically whether the Appellant could "appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences" of his decision, given his delusional beliefs about environmental afflictions and the effects of medication.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that capacity requires an objectively reasonable appreciation of risks and benefits, not one rooted in delusions, even for an intellectually capable individual.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous and vexatious because the applicant had not exhausted her statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that it was bound to fail in its current form, but did so without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a statutory appeal.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court set a hearing date of August 6, 2020, by videoconference, and provided detailed directions for the filing of materials, including the use of an electronic drop box, hyperlinked factums, and compendiums.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of the application following the denial of a motion for leave to intervene.

The court directed that the application proceed by ZOOM videoconference on July 31, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The court issued a case management endorsement to schedule an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

The hearing was scheduled to proceed by ZOOM videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, via an electronic drop box.

A case management conference was held to schedule and provide directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard by a panel of three judges via ZOOM videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, using an electronic drop box.

A case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court scheduled the appeal to be heard via Zoom videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, factums, and compendiums.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim decision regarding temporary custody and access in a high-conflict family law case.

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

The court denied the applicant's request for oral argument, noting that motions for leave to appeal are typically heard in writing and this case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard practice.

Case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for two motions for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motions to proceed by videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule three motions for leave to appeal a decision of Morgan J. The Divisional Court set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials and directed that the motions proceed in writing before a single panel.

The court also provided detailed instructions for the creation of an electronic drop box, the formatting of electronic documents, and the filing of factums and compendiums in light of the COVID-19 suspension of ordinary court operations.

A case management teleconference was held to set the timetable and procedure for the moving party's motion for leave to appeal.

The court directed that the motion be heard in writing by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court and established deadlines for serving materials and uploading them to an electronic drop box.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent and moved for an interim stay.

The respondent indicated it would oppose the stay and move to quash the application for prematurity.

A case management conference was held to set a timetable for the exchange of materials and to schedule the motions to be heard together by videoconference.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to grant interim statutory accident benefits.

Before the appeal could be heard, the appellant's underlying claim was settled, rendering the appeal moot.

The appellant argued the court should still hear the appeal because the issue was evasive of review and of public importance.

Applying the Borowski factors, the Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding that the issue was not evasive of review and that a future, non-moot case would provide a better factual foundation.

The appeal was dismissed.

A case management conference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal an order regarding capacity and representation issues.

The court noted delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the self-represented status of two respondents.

The court set a timetable for the filing of materials and directed that the motion for leave to appeal proceed in writing.

Nadire Atas sought permission to appeal a court decision (2020 ONSC 3471) that denied her application to rescind a judgment (2018 ONSC 58) declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court found that her request for permission to appeal was itself vexatious and denied it, stating she had not identified an appealable issue.

A case management conference was held to schedule an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision involving defamation.

The court noted the appeal had been outstanding for over a year and the respondent was 85 years old, necessitating no further delay.

The court scheduled a one-day virtual hearing via Zoom and provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and compendiums.

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion without notice seeking permission to apply under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to rescind the vexatious litigant order against her.

The court found the motion was an attempt to re-litigate the original order, which had already been upheld on appeal.

The court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process and entirely devoid of merit.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal following the granting of leave.

The court directed that the appeal be heard by a panel of three judges via video conference.

Detailed procedural directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of materials, the use of a password-protected drop box, and the continuation of a sealing order.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an appeal from an interim decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court ordered that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via video conference.

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