David L. Corbett

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 upcoming appeal before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the creation of a password-protected electronic drop box for document filing.

Directions were also given regarding the formatting of electronic documents, hyperlinking of authorities, and the potential for a motion to quash the appeal to be heard by the appeal panel.

A case management conference was held to schedule an appeal and determine the mode of hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court directed that the appeal proceed by teleconference due to the appellant's lack of reliable internet for a videoconference, subject to the appellant's right to request an alternative mode.

The court also provided detailed directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials.

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.

A case management endorsement addressing correspondence from counsel for the Concerned Citizens of North Stormont regarding a potential recusal motion based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that no decision had been made to proceed with the motion and discussed the potential application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court left it to the parties to decide how to proceed, noting that ongoing settlement discussions could affect their decisions.

This case management endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a request by Concerned Citizens of North Stormont to discuss a possible recusal motion.

The court clarifies that allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias should be raised at the earliest opportunity, with counsel's knowledge being relevant.

It also discusses the court's jurisdiction to issue a Rule 2.1 notice in such circumstances and acknowledges the role of ongoing settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to confirm a master's report that granted summary judgment in a construction lien action.

The Divisional Court held that a master acting as a referee under the Construction Lien Act has the jurisdiction to use the enhanced powers of a judge on a summary judgment motion.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the master deprived the self-represented respondent of procedural fairness by treating his motion to discharge the lien under section 47 as a motion for summary judgment without notice.

The matter was remitted back to a master for disposition.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy.

The appeal was adjourned on the condition that the appellants pay rent as it fell due.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a case management conference was scheduled, but the appellants failed to attend and had failed to pay rent for April and May.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal due to non-attendance and non-compliance with the adjournment order, granting the landlord permission to move for an eviction order, while allowing the appellants to move to set aside the dismissal if they had not abandoned the appeal.

The moving parties sought to object to the responding parties including their factums from the court below in their motion record for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement clarifying that anything before the court below may form part of the record on a motion for leave to appeal, and there was nothing improper about including the factums.

The court declined to reconsider its decision on the motion for leave to appeal, noting that its decision did not turn on the responding parties' factums.

The court held a case management conference by teleconference to schedule and set procedural directions for two applications for judicial review.

The hearing was scheduled to proceed by video conference using ZOOM technology.

The court issued detailed directions regarding the filing of electronic materials, factums, compendiums, and costs outlines via a password-protected drop box.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court issued directions regarding the use of Zoom, attire, and the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities via a password-protected drop box.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming appeal to be heard by videoconference.

The court provided detailed instructions on the use of ZOOM, electronic filing via a drop box, formatting of electronic documents, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs materials.

The appellant sought an interim stay of an order directing the sale of a matrimonial home pending his appeal.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no irreparable harm to the appellant, as he could purchase another home and had been out of the property for nearly three years.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the appellant's delay in seeking the stay and the risk of losing a pending $3.91 million offer in a volatile real estate market.

The request for an interim stay was denied.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 in the cause of the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule a teleconference with the Divisional Court Administrative Judge.

The self-represented applicants sought to commence an application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision that barred their right to sue for a workplace injury.

The court found the 17-page notice of application to be improperly drafted as a comprehensive argument rather than a summary of grounds.

The court struck the notice of application but granted the applicants leave to serve and file a fresh, properly formatted notice of application.