David L. Corbett

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.

The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding her complaints against her former employer and benefits provider.

The applicant named only the HRTO as a respondent.

At a case management conference, the court directed the applicant to amend her application to name the respondents from the underlying HRTO proceedings, as they have an interest in the outcome of the application.

The court provided directions for service of the amended application.

A case management endorsement scheduling an appeal from a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The appeal concerns a discipline panel's decision to reject a joint submission on penalty and impose a higher penalty.

The College does not oppose the appeal.

The court provided procedural directions for a ZOOM videoconference hearing, including the filing of electronic materials and costs submissions.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application for compensation for flood damage to a leased condominium unit.

The Board found the tenants were not negligent when a bathroom faucet leaked and they could not locate the shut-off valve, and that their failure to maintain insurance did not render them liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's negligence analysis and noting the landlord failed to prove that the tenants' lack of insurance caused her loss.

The court issued procedural directions in an appeal following unsuccessful attempts to schedule a remote case management conference due to the self-represented appellant's technological and accommodation challenges.

The court ordered the parties to proceed in writing, setting strict deadlines for the appellant to serve her appeal record and any requests to introduce fresh evidence, emphasizing that appeals are not a retrial of the original case.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.