David L. Corbett

The appellant mortgagee appealed multiple orders, including a finding of contempt for attempting to sell a property under a power of sale in violation of a court order, and a finding that the respondent's construction lien had priority over its mortgage.

The Divisional Court dismissed all appeals.

The court held that the appellant was bound by its formal admission of contempt made during sentencing, and the Apology Act did not apply to admissions made under oath or by counsel in court.

Furthermore, the court upheld the finding that the construction lien had priority because the appellant failed to prove any funds were actually advanced under its mortgage.

The appellant pharmacist appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, including improper solicitation and misusing confidential patient information, and imposed a twelve-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no error in the Committee's credibility assessments or application of the burden of proof.

However, the Court allowed the penalty appeal in part, finding the Committee erred in law by treating the appellant's exercise of his right to a hearing as an aggravating factor.

The suspension was reduced from twelve to ten months.

The accused, Andrew Bond, was found guilty of possession of cocaine for trafficking and illegal possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun.

This judgment addresses three Charter applications made by the defence during the trial: (1) exclusion of evidence obtained via search warrants based on confidential informants, (2) exclusion of evidence obtained through warrantless cellphone "pinging" and (3) a breach of the right to counsel due to delayed access.

The court upheld the search warrants after a Garofoli analysis, found that the "pinging" was justified by exigent circumstances (or that the evidence would not be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter), and determined that the delay in access to counsel did not constitute an infringement or cause actual prejudice.

All defence applications to exclude evidence were denied.

This endorsement finalized 14 dismissal orders and one additional order arising from a case management conference.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, submitted improper and vexatious comments on the draft orders, repeatedly challenging the orders themselves or alleging judicial bias, rather than addressing their form.

The court signed 13 draft orders based on the moving party's submissions, with directions for resolving minor issues on the remaining orders.

The court also issued orders to manage the respondent's improper communications to counsel, directing counsel not to act as a conduit for vexatious arguments.

Further directions were given to the respondent regarding her failure to provide transcript status for a contempt appeal and failure to file a defence in another action, with warnings of potential contempt for non-compliance.

The court addressed Nadire Atas's non-compliance with a direction to provide blacklined draft orders and explanations for orders made at a case management conference.

Instead of complying, Atas submitted arguments contesting the orders and making allegations of bias, which the court deemed vexatious and defiant.

The court finalized the orders based on the drafts prepared by the moving party, Gary Caplan, and issued strict warnings to Atas regarding improper communications and re-litigating decided issues during the order settlement process.

The court also followed up on a delay in the release of transcripts.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over the form and content of orders prepared to implement prior dismissal orders made at a case management conference.

The self-represented respondent, Ms. Atas, raised vexatious arguments contesting the prior dismissal orders and asserting a lack of jurisdiction.

The court found her submissions irrelevant and vexatious, noting her consistent pattern of making procedural matters cumbersome.

The court refused to revisit the merits of the dismissal orders and directed Ms. Atas to provide properly blacklined draft orders with explanations by a tight deadline if she had legitimate concerns about the form and content, otherwise the orders would issue as granted.

The parties appeared before the Divisional Court and requested an adjournment of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board concerning a $15,000 damages claim.

Citing proportionality and the inefficient use of judicial resources, the court proposed deciding the appeal on a written record rather than reconvening for oral argument.

The parties consented, and the court issued a procedural order setting a schedule for the exchange of written materials and costs submissions.

The appellant appealed an order regarding a charging order under the Solicitors Act to the Divisional Court, arguing the monetary value was under $50,000.

The Divisional Court held that a charging order is a final order and the appellant failed to prove the value was under $50,000, as the garnishments exceeded $200,000.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party sought to review a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court who had declined to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

The moving party argued they were caught by surprise by the nature of the motion below.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to review, finding that this argument was not raised below, the record did not support it, no fresh evidence was adduced, and the single judge made no palpable or overriding error.

Furthermore, the motion to review was itself brought out of time.

The appellant subcontractor appealed a trial judge's decision granting priority to a solicitors' charging order over the subcontractor's trust claim under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that funds payable to the contractor by the owners on account of an assigned lien were trust funds under section 8 of the Act.

The court held that the subcontractor's trust claim, including interest on the trust funds, takes priority over the solicitors' charging order.

This case management endorsement addresses multiple ongoing proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, Nadire Atas.

The court made several orders and directions, including confirming the open court principle for case management conferences, dismissing numerous actions against Peoples Trust and other defendants due to the litigant's failure to comply with "Chavali requests" (orders to demonstrate intent to continue litigation), and setting deadlines for filing defence and bringing a motion for a stay of summary judgment proceedings.

The court also addressed the litigant's repeated allegations of bias and jurisdictional challenges, dismissing them as meritless and vexatious.

Directions were given regarding outstanding costs orders and the process for appealing interlocutory rulings.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to caution her.

The ICRC had found the applicant failed to attend the hospital to assess a decompensating patient.

The Divisional Court quashed the HPARB decision and set aside the ICRC decision, finding that the ICRC fundamentally misstated the medical records.

The contemporaneous records showed the patient was stable and resting comfortably, not decompensating or in crushing pain as the ICRC had concluded.

The HPARB's deference to a decision based on an unreasonable finding of fact was itself unreasonable.

The applicant, previously disciplined for unauthorized use of the title 'Doctor', brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside the Divisional Court's prior decision upholding her discipline.

She alleged fraud and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the College's internal procedures for referring matters to discipline.

She also sought to disqualify the College's counsel, and a third party sought leave to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, finding no fraud, no procedural unfairness, and that the fresh evidence would not have altered the original outcome.

This endorsement summarizes case management events and provides directions for ongoing litigation involving Nadire Atas, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant.

The court addresses Ms. Atas's non-compliance with prior orders, her attempts to re-open concluded cases, and her allegations of bias and constitutional questions.

It outlines the status of various claims against and by Ms. Atas, including pending dismissal and summary judgment motions.

The court emphasizes the need for Ms. Atas to comply with court procedures and cautions her against continued vexatious conduct, while also setting an agenda for an upcoming case management conference.

This case management endorsement records the signing of an order dismissing the outstanding litigation against the Chahals, in accordance with a prior endorsement.

In a case management endorsement, the court clarified that one of the actions involving the Chahals had already been dismissed, negating the need for a separate order.

The court also approved a draft order prepared by counsel for Mr. Sloan, rejecting the self-represented defendant's draft as a continuation of her contemptuous response to a previous order.

The deadline for submitting agenda items for the upcoming case management conference was extended.

This case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters in ongoing proceedings, primarily involving Caplan et al. and Nadire Atas.

The court finalized orders dismissing counterclaims asserted by Ms. Atas in defamation proceedings and dismissed all claims by Ms. Atas and her company against Krishan and Nutan Chahal.

Additionally, David Baker's small claims court action against Ms. Atas, including her counterclaim, was dismissed.

The court also signed an order for the trials in the three defamation actions to be heard together, clarifying the operative parts of the order.

Instructions were provided for counsel to draft and pick up corrected orders.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid overtime wages against his former employers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action against one defendant, failed to show the existence of two or more class members, failed to provide a litigation plan, and that preferable procedures such as small claims actions or employment standards complaints were available.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the defendants should have been ordered to produce lists of class members, as the appellant had not pursued this request prior to the certification motion.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the court to address his conduct in advancing multiple applications regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother.

During the hearing, the applicant was belligerent, disrespectful, and repeatedly interrupted the judge, leading to a finding of contempt in the face of the court.

The court sentenced the applicant to three days of time served.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that the applicant be prohibited from commencing further proceedings related to the 2006 incident without prior judicial permission.

The court also dismissed the applicant's latest application under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the executive officer of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care terminating its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program due to overbilling.

The pharmacy argued the executive officer only had the power to suspend, not terminate, privileges under the statute, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the executive officer's decision to revoke privileges was reasonable, within her authority, and procedurally fair.