David L. Corbett

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles regarding a boundary dispute between neighbouring lakefront properties.

The issue was whether the metes and bounds description in the registered deed and plan of subdivision, which contained a mathematical error, or an original wooden surveyor's stake should govern the boundary line.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a registered description generally governs, where it demonstrably fails to express the grantor's true intention, original surveyors' monuments take precedence.

The court affirmed the application of the hierarchy of boundary evidence and section 9 of the Surveys Act.

The applicant, an Official Veterinarian, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal of the Registrar's decision to rescind her approval.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the Panel's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, which explicitly provides a right of appeal to the Panel for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

Nadire Atas sought two further orders in a s.140 application, which had already been merged into a February 2018 judgment and previously denied.

An urgent case management conference was held on March 26, 2019, at Ms. Atas's insistence, to address these requests.

The court found Ms. Atas's assertions about prior events to be false and her conduct vexatious, as she failed to adequately prepare and relitigated decided issues.

The court awarded costs of $1,000 to Gary Caplan's clients, payable by Ms. Atas, as an indemnity for the expense incurred due to her actions.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the plaintiffs' claim for breach of informant privilege under Rule 21.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by absolute privilege, which protects statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the law is unsettled and it is not plain and obvious that a claim for breach of informant privilege cannot form an exception to absolute privilege.

The court addressed a procedural dispute concerning the issuance of two orders and the scheduling of a case management conference.

The self-represented respondent initially requested urgent orders for an appeal but subsequently resisted the scheduled conference.

The court affirmed that the conference would proceed as scheduled, emphasizing the impropriety of a party unilaterally expressing disagreement with a judicial decision regarding a conference.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's decision regarding the use of a prior civil judgment in disciplinary proceedings against him.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the merits and a correctness standard to the issue of abuse of process.

Finding no error in the Hearing Panel's reasons, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded agreed costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering joint custody, imputing the father's income for child support, and awarding costs to the father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was a necessary and appropriate response to the mother's severe gatekeeping behaviour, which included unilateral decision-making and false allegations.

The court also upheld the trial judge's imputation of the father's income based on the available evidence, noting that neither party had provided a professional valuation at trial.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the bargaining agent for four construction workers.

The applicant challenged the Board's evidentiary ruling that prevented its site superintendent from testifying about his relationship with other on-site workers not subject to the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to exclude the evidence as irrelevant was reasonable, as the applicant had expressly confirmed it was not challenging the size of the bargaining unit.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, made a request for an urgent case conference to address issues of bias and constitutional questions.

The court denied the request, directing that these matters be raised at the next scheduled case management conference in April 2019.

This case management endorsement addresses disagreements between the parties regarding the precise wording of a draft interlocutory injunction order.

The court clarifies several points, including that relief not pursued during oral argument (removal of internet publications) will not be included in the order.

It also provides directions on the evidence to be referenced in the preamble and the operative language for continuing interim orders, and sets deadlines for further submissions on unresolved drafting issues.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment decision finding his child in need of protection and placing her in the custody of the respondent mother.

The child had threatened suicide during access visits, which the motions judge found was proximately caused by the father's inappropriate conduct and obsession with proving parental alienation syndrome.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in relying on the available evidence.

The court also noted that the significant delay in perfecting the appeal rendered the requested remedy of a new trial impractical given the child's age and consistent refusal to see the father.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress arising from workplace bullying and harassment.

The Board concluded that the injury would be compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, relying on previous tribunal decisions that found the acute mental stress limitation unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and declining to consider new arguments regarding the employment function bar and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that were not raised before the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university discipline board decision that upheld a tribunal's finding of academic dishonesty regarding his doctoral thesis.

The tribunal had denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing and penalty phase in his absence, ultimately recommending his degree be cancelled and he be expelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decisions to deny the adjournment and proceed immediately to penalty were procedurally fair and reasonable given the extensive history of delay, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and the prior notice provided to the applicant.

Nadire Atas requested an urgent case management conference to pursue allegations of judicial bias on motion.

The court determined the request was not urgent and directed that the matter could be raised at the next regularly scheduled case management conference, anticipated for April 2019.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of its employees, pending judicial review.

The employer argued it would suffer irreparable harm by being forced to choose between pursuing judicial review or complying with its obligation to bargain in good faith, and by expending unrecoverable resources on collective bargaining.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the employer could bargain in good faith while reserving its rights pending judicial review, and that mutual, unremarkable process costs do not constitute irreparable harm.

The self-represented litigant requested an early case management conference, potentially by telephone, to raise unspecified constitutional questions.

The court declined to schedule an early conference without particulars of the issues and how they bear on the litigation.

The court also refused the request for a telephone conference, noting that given the litigant's past allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias, conferences should proceed in a courtroom where they can be recorded.

In a child protection appeal, the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to admit fresh evidence regarding the views and preferences of the nearly 16-year-old child.

The appellant requested an adjournment to file responding evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence and denied the adjournment, finding that the appellant had the evidence for two weeks, which was sufficient time to respond with reasonable diligence, and that child protection cases must take priority.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned after the father's counsel was removed from the record due to loss of contact following his release from jail.

The father failed to inquire about the appeal or provide a parenting plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned and alternatively on the merits, noting that further delay would prejudice the child by delaying a potential adoption.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that awarded her $10,000 for an ankle injury sustained in a slip and fall, but dismissed her claim that the fall caused or exacerbated a neck injury.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider the evidence holistically to infer causation.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no error in the trial judge's analysis of causation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licensing Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Divisional Court endorsed the settlement, explicitly noting that its endorsement should not be taken as approval of the Tribunal's reasoning in the case.