David L. Corbett

A case management endorsement setting out the procedural schedule and directions for three related applications between the applicant employer and the respondent association.

The court ordered that the applications be heard together by a bilingual panel via ZOOM videoconference.

Directions were provided for the electronic filing of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box, hyperlinked factums, and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication in the record.

The appellant utility company appealed an Ontario Energy Board decision allocating 38% of Future Tax Savings to ratepayers.

The savings arose from a departure tax paid by the appellant when the Province sold shares in its parent company.

A Review Panel had previously found the original allocation flawed because the departure tax was a real cost borne by the utility, not ratepayers, and directed a rehearing.

The Rehearing Panel upheld the original allocation by applying a reasonableness standard rather than reconsidering the matter.

The Divisional Court held the Rehearing Panel erred in law by applying the wrong test, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter to a new panel with directions to apply the 'benefits follow costs' principle, meaning the tax savings should benefit the shareholders who bore the cost.

The appellant registered a claim for lien against the respondents' property.

The motion judge discharged the lien under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act, finding it was registered out of time because the contract work was completed and fully invoiced 11 months prior.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in relying on the invoice and applying the wrong standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual conclusions and holding that the correct underlying test was applied.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The City of Toronto, which took the same position as the moving parties before LPAT, did not appeal and took no position on the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondent developer.

Case management endorsement setting the schedule and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a report by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner concerning Premier Doug Ford.

The court directed that the hearing proceed by video conference and established deadlines and formatting requirements for electronic document filing.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal from a decision of Charney J. The Divisional Court directed that the appeal proceed by ZOOM videoconference and provided procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and costs outlines.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motion to be heard by video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

Case management endorsement scheduling a motion to determine whether a motion for leave to appeal a carriage decision in a proposed securities class action is stayed by an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court directed the responding party to bring a motion to stay the leave application, to be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

A case management conference was held for an application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision.

The self-represented applicants' amended notice of application was accepted without further amendment.

The court addressed procedural issues, including the preparation of the Record of Proceedings, the unavailability of video recordings of the WSIAT hearing, and the procedure for introducing fresh evidence.

WSIAT agreed to compile and serve the Record of Proceedings, and a further case management conference was to be scheduled.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrator to direct the withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings against a police officer.

Following case management teleconferences, the parties agreed in principle to a schedule for the application and a tentative resolution regarding a stay.

The court issued a case management endorsement setting the hearing for October 27, 2020, and providing procedural directions for the filing of materials.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had dismissed the original allegations of sexual abuse but found professional misconduct based on the physician's failure to respect the patient's privacy during an examination.

The College conceded that this finding was procedurally unfair because the privacy issue was not raised in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal on consent and quashed the liability and penalty decisions.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Condominium Authority of Ontario.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and provided procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and costs submissions.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him a certificate of registration as a psychologist.

He brought a motion for a fee waiver under the Financial Administration Act to cover the costs of hearing transcripts.

The case management judge found the motion appeared doomed to fail as the issue had already been decided by another judge, and the applicant refused to engage constructively.

The court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.02 that the court was considering dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

During a case management teleconference for a motion for leave to appeal, the responding party objected to the inclusion of a previously disallowed affidavit and email communications in the moving party's materials.

The court ruled that the disallowed affidavit could remain in the record solely to assess the motions judge's decision to strike it, but not for the truth of its contents.

However, the court struck out the email communications because they were not before the motions judge and raised a challenge not previously raised.

The potential applicants intend to seek judicial review of any permit issued by the Minister of the Environment allowing the Town of Sauble Beach to carry out works that could destroy sensitive plover habitat.

During a case management teleconference, the court directed the parties to behave reasonably and attempt to agree on terms for a potential stay and an expedited application process.

The court established that it would expedite any necessary stay motion and provided instructions for arranging an emergency case management conference if interim terms could not be agreed upon.

A case management teleconference was held to set a return date and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment.

The court scheduled a one-day ZOOM videoconference hearing for August 20, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic exchange of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box and hyperlinked factums.

A case management conference was held to schedule a review of a single judge's decision denying a proposed intervener's motion for leave to intervene as a party.

The parties agreed that the review would be heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court, and a schedule for the exchange of materials was established.

The self-represented moving party sought an urgent motion to compel the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate a complaint against a physician.

The court advised her that the motion was improperly framed as there was no subsisting proceeding, and scheduled a case management conference to explore regularizing the matter.

The moving party refused to attend the conference and indicated she wished to withdraw her motion.

The court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs and directed that any future matters involving the moving party be subject to case management.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a final order.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and set out a timetable for the exchange of materials, including the establishment of an electronic drop box for document sharing.

A case management conference was held to address an issue regarding whether the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board had been settled.

The court directed the parties to exchange materials on the settlement issue and place them before the panel scheduled to hear the appeal.