David L. Corbett

A case management endorsement providing directions for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court outlined procedures for videoconferencing, electronic filing of materials, and the format of the hearing.

The court also directed that Ontario's motion to stay the impugned decision be adjourned to the panel hearing the application, rather than being heard by a single judge.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedure for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided directions on electronic filings, videoconferencing protocols, and public access.

The applicant's motion to stay the impugned decision was adjourned to the panel, with the court declining the respondent's request to adjourn it to a single judge after the hearing.

The applicant requested permission to bring a motion in writing to re-open evidence on four motions for judgment while decisions were under reserve.

The court denied the request, noting that court operations were suspended due to COVID-19 and only urgent matters were being heard.

The court further noted that the applicant failed to follow previous case management directions requiring her to schedule a case management conference and provide a detailed agenda before bringing any motions.

The self-represented tenant sought urgent relief from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The tenant had previously failed to comply with a court order to pay disputed rent into court, resulting in the dismissal of her appeal.

The court dismissed the urgent motion as moot without an oral hearing, noting that the Chief Justice had already issued a blanket order suspending the enforcement of all residential evictions during the pandemic.

The appellant tenant brought an urgent motion to be restored to the premises during the COVID-19 suspension of normal court activities.

The landlord undertook not to re-lease or give possession of the unit pending the final determination of the motion.

The court adjourned the motion to a teleconference hearing and provided procedural directions for the filing of affidavit evidence.

The self-represented appellants sought to appeal a decision of the motion judge, who had dismissed their motion to extend the time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The appellants had delayed six years before seeking the extension.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable explanation for the delay and no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an unreported decision of Patterson J. dated October 22, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 inclusive.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Corthorn J. dated November 4, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Hood J. dated October 31, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent and $5,000 to the trustee.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment revoking their authority for a wind farm project.

Three procedural motions were brought: CanWEA sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court, the Landowners sought leave to intervene as parties, and the respondent moved to strike fresh evidence filed by the applicants.

The court granted CanWEA leave to intervene, denied the Landowners leave to intervene without prejudice to their right to bring a separate application, and adjourned the motion to strike evidence to the panel hearing the underlying application.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to seek leave to appeal orders of the Commercial Court.

After the plaintiff bank filed extensive responding materials, the defendants abandoned their motion.

The plaintiff sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis, as provided by the underlying loan agreement, fixing the costs of the abandoned motion at $10,052.71.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards claim against his former employer.

The dispute centered on the number of hours the applicant worked in October 2017.

The Board found he worked 34.5 hours, while the applicant claimed he worked up to 93 hours.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's factual finding was reasonable based on the evidence, which included a paystub and OMVIC registration documents.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court expressed dismay that the appellant failed to file a proper record, transcripts, or exhibits, and instead filed an affidavit without moving to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent also filed an affidavit improperly.

The court adjourned the appeal, imposing tight timelines for the appellant to order transcripts and perfect the appeal, and ordered no costs to date.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's award of non-earner benefits to the respondent, who was struck by a bus.

The insurer argued the arbitrator failed to apply the 'continuously prevents' aspect of the test for non-earner benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrator had addressed the test in light of the evidence and the specific arguments raised by the parties at the arbitration.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought permission from the case management judge to commence proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice for an order in the nature of mandamus regarding a private prosecution he initiated against police officers.

The private prosecution related to a 2006 tasering incident involving his brother.

The court denied the request, finding it frivolous and a continuation of the applicant's efforts to litigate issues already decided.

The court clarified that the prior order restricting the applicant's access to the courts also applied to private prosecutions in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the manufacturer of the drug Celexa, alleging a failure to warn that the drug is a teratogen.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by concluding the appellants had abandoned general causation as a common issue and by analyzing the duty to warn in isolation from general causation.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the certification motion was remitted to be heard afresh by another judge.

The appellant, a licensed land surveyor, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of multiple acts of professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The misconduct included unauthorized billing, performing unnecessary research, and counseling a client to file a malicious complaint against a competitor.

Applying the standard of review from Vavilov, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the penalty of license revocation, noting the appellant's fundamental dishonesty, lack of accountability, and the need to protect the public.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a grievance arbitration award that substituted a thirty-day suspension for the termination of an employee.

The Divisional Court stayed the application as premature, noting that the arbitrator had remitted the matter back to the parties and remained seized of the issue of whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy.

The court held that judicial review should wait until the final disposition of the remedy to avoid overlapping work and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant sought to review a decision quashing his application for judicial review of the Métis Nation of Ontario's (MNO) refusal to grant him membership.

The motion judge had found that MNO was a private voluntary organization, not a public body subject to judicial review.

The applicant also moved to introduce fresh evidence of a 2019 agreement between MNO and Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding the fresh evidence would not have affected the result and agreeing that MNO remains a private entity subject to private law until formally recognized as a government.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Appeals Committee dismissing his motion for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The respondent conceded that the Appeals Committee's decision breached procedural fairness because the Chairperson had previously presided at pre-hearing conferences.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Vavilov, the Divisional Court declined to remit the matter back to the tribunal, finding that granting the extension of time was the inevitable outcome.

The court quashed the decision and granted the extension of time.