David L. Corbett

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent municipality.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the respondent Commission's Cost of Production Formula for chicken pricing.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to adequately explain its preference for certain expert evidence over others, rendering its reasons conclusory and inadequate.

The application was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The appellant estate trustee appealed a decision directing payment to the respondent for expenses paid on behalf of the deceased's estate.

The appellant argued the claim was barred by s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 38(3) applies to wrongs committed by the deceased, not ordinary estate debts.

The Court also held that the limitation period for reimbursement did not begin to run until the respondent made a claim to the appointed trustee and the trustee refused to pay.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to revoke a special event permit for a cultural festival after violent protests erupted on the first day.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it moot since the 2023 festival dates had passed and the 2024 festival proceeded without incident.

The court also noted that the City's decision was substantively reasonable given the immediate risk to public safety, and declined to rule on the jurisdictional and Charter issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

The appellant tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlords' family use.

She argued that her paralegal provided ineffective assistance by conceding the landlords' good faith without her instructions.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to raise the ineffective assistance issue before the LTB in a timely manner.

The majority further held that in civil proceedings, the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim against the representative, not the reversal of a valid administrative decision, and declined to extend the criminal law doctrine to this context.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The LAT had found that the appellant's physician, Dr. Ofokansi, provided only a conclusory opinion on the OCF-19 form without supporting analysis or medical data.

The appellant argued the LAT should have considered the evidence of his psychologist, Dr. Reesor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 45 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule requires a catastrophic impairment assessment to be conducted by a physician.

Since the physician's assessment was entirely conclusory and entitled to no weight, the psychologist's evidence alone was insufficient to establish the claim.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision ordering eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued he was unable to pay rent due to injuries sustained when his apartment ceiling collapsed, which is the subject of a separate Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) personal injury claim.

Due to procedural errors by the tenant's counsel, the LTB did not adjudicate the merits of the rent abatement or stay request.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's findings on rent arrears but quashed the denial of abatement and stayed the eviction order, directing that the abatement and stay issues be determined by the SCJ alongside the personal injury claim to prevent injustice.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that dissolved a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the impugned order, and restored the Mareva injunction pending the final disposition of the appeal.

The court also ordered an expedited schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and awarded costs of the motion to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of Conway J. dated April 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to each of the responding parties, Sheldon Libfeld and Jay Libfeld.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of Howie J. dated February 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $9,085 to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Perfetto J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $5,853.40 to the responding party within thirty days.

The appellants appealed a discipline panel's decision finding they engaged in professional misconduct by devising and sending three falsified emails to discredit former employees.

The appellants admitted to sending one email but claimed the other two were sent by a hacker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the panel correctly applied the burden of proof, reasonably rejected the hacking theory, properly qualified the respondent's digital forensics expert, and appropriately drew an adverse inference against the appellants for failing to produce key evidence.

The court also upheld the panel's penalty and costs awards, noting the sanctions were measured given the fundamental dishonesty involved.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

The appellant client appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her motion to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer's certificate regarding her former solicitors' accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in her deferential review of the Assessment Officer's comprehensive reasons, nor did she err in concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The Court also clarified that the objections process under Rule 58 is not mandatory for solicitor-client assessments under the Solicitors Act, finding prior jurisprudence to the contrary was decided per incuriam.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $6,000 to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by the warranty corporation requiring it to pay $45,688.71 for a retaining wall.

The corporation had initially determined the retaining wall was not a warranted defect, but later reversed its position based on new submissions from the homeowner, without providing the applicant notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the corporation breached procedural fairness.

The impugned finding was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision following a fair process.