David L. Corbett

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court which upheld an assessment officer's decision regarding solicitor's fees.

The appellant argued the assessment officer erred by double-counting factors in the Cohen v. Kealey analysis and in finding the underlying case was of average complexity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and noting that complexity was not a substantial factor since the solicitor accomplished nothing of value for the client.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its defamation claims against the respondents.

The appellant's principal had publicly demanded an explanation for the termination of a property maintenance contract, prompting harsh words from the respondents' property manager.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the defence of consent applied, as the impugned words were responsive to the appellant's inquiry.

The court also found no error in the costs award below.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff appealed a decision declining to certify a negligent misrepresentation class action against underwriters of a secondary public offering.

A statutory misrepresentation claim against the issuer had already been certified on consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Court held that resolving the common issues of duty of care, truth of the representation, and negligence in a single proceeding would significantly advance the claims, promote judicial economy, and improve access to justice compared to individual actions.

The appellant contractor appealed a decision declaring its construction lien expired.

The motions judge had found that the owner's notice of termination constituted 'abandonment' of the contract under s. 31(2) of the Construction Lien Act, triggering the 45-day period to register a lien.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that abandonment requires the contractor to abandon the contract, either subjectively or objectively.

A unilateral termination notice by the owner does not force abandonment by the contractor, especially where the contractor remains ready, willing, and able to complete the work and settlement discussions are ongoing.

The appellant challenged his late brother's will but later abandoned the claim.

The respondents (estate trustees) obtained summary judgment on a counterclaim for damages representing CRA interest and penalties incurred by the estate due to the litigation delay, or alternatively, as an award of costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that commencing litigation is not an actionable wrong unless it meets the strict test for the tort of abuse of civil process, which was neither pleaded nor proved.

The court also held that estate administration expenses, such as CRA penalties, cannot be awarded as legal costs.

The appellant contractor appealed a decision declaring its construction lien expired.

The motions judge had found that the respondent owner's notice of termination triggered the 45-day deadline for the appellant to file its claim for lien, equating termination with 'abandonment' under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that abandonment requires the contractor to abandon the contract, and an owner's unilateral termination does not automatically constitute abandonment by the contractor.

The claim for lien was therefore registered in time.

The plaintiff sued several police officers and the London Police Services Board for negligent investigation following his arrest for break and enter and breach of recognizance in the context of a domestic dispute.

The trial judge found two officers and the Board liable and awarded damages.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on a legal test that was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Applying the correct standard, the court held that the police acted reasonably based on the information available to them and had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests.

The action was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a procedural order of the Landlord and Tenant Board directing that the matter proceed in writing.

The tenant, who had requested accommodation for serious disabilities, objected to the tight timeline for submitting materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to proceed in writing was reasonable and procedurally fair.

However, the court issued directions establishing a new, extended schedule for the exchange of evidence and written arguments.

The appellants appealed an application judge's order granting an oppression remedy to the minority shareholder respondents.

The application judge found that the majority shareholder's exercise of a drag-along right to force the sale of the respondents' shares was oppressive because the sale price was below fair market value, and ordered a valuation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that while the application judge did not err in finding a reasonable expectation that the drag-along right required a sale at fair market value, he erred in concluding the sale was below fair market value without evidence.

The court varied the order to make the valuation an interim step before determining if oppression occurred.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) denying him hospital privileges.

The Divisional Court found that HPARB reasonably addressed alleged procedural irregularities and correctly applied the statutory test under the Public Hospitals Act.

The court upheld HPARB's finding that the appellant's hostile conduct towards other health professionals, which continued on social media, made his continued involvement at the hospital untenable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying OHIP funding for out-of-country residential psychiatric treatment at the Austen Riggs Centre.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish that the required services were not available at an OHIP preferred provider facility.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable, noting that while the chosen facility may have been preferred by the appellant's expert, the evidence did not show that the preferred providers could not provide the necessary care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding severe noise problems in her apartment.

The Board had dismissed her claims for failing to prove them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to extend time, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit because it challenged factual findings, which are not subject to appellate review.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.

The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.

The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) upholding the Toronto Police Services Board's refusal to disclose certain records related to her 2007 arrest.

The IPC found the withheld records contained third-party personal information exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the IPC failed to properly consider her Charter rights and the public interest override, noting that the Act is not a mechanism for criminal disclosure and the public interest exemption did not apply.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing its objection to the certification of a union.

The employer argued the union discriminated on the basis of age in its constitution and other collective agreements, violating s. 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 15 was reasonable and that procedural fairness was not breached when the Board dismissed the objection without an oral hearing.

The applicants, two student associations, sought judicial review to quash the Minister's 'Student Choice Initiative' directives, which required colleges and universities to allow students to opt out of student association fees.

The Divisional Court found the directives justiciable, rejecting the government's arguments that they were immune from review as core policy decisions or exercises of the Crown's prerogative spending power.

The Court held that the directives were unlawful because they conflicted with the statutory schemes governing colleges and universities, which protect the autonomy of universities and the normal activities of college student associations.

The application was granted and the directives were quashed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary spousal and child support order, arguing the motions judge failed to apply a shared parenting offset.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that even if a factual error occurred, the issue did not meet the test for leave to appeal.

The court emphasized that temporary support orders are designed to maintain a reasonable state of affairs pending trial, and errors are better addressed at trial rather than through costly interlocutory appeals.

The court issued reasons specifically to discourage the family law bar from bringing unmeritorious motions for leave to appeal temporary support orders.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the layoff of two unionized employees.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably applied the wrong standard of review by deferring to the employer's assessment of the employees' relative abilities rather than determining correctness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's approach was consistent with established arbitral consensus and reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the arbitrator's delay in issuing the decision.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement on costs following multiple appeals under the Construction Lien Act.

Noting that the case was litigated without regard for proportionality, the court recognized that the respondent on appeal had no choice but to engage with its meritorious but modest claim.

Costs of all appeals were fixed in the aggregate at $65,000 inclusive, payable to the respondent on appeal from the appellant and recoverable from the lien security.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding sanctions for research misconduct, which prohibited him from conducting research as a principal investigator, applying for grants, and permanently closed his research laboratory.

The applicant argued the decision failed to consider mitigating factors, including his unblemished record and status as a world-renowned researcher.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable given the systemic and persistent nature of the misconduct over a ten-year period.