David L. Corbett

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 physician sought judicial review of the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision dismissing her request to reconsider an interim suspension of her certificate of registration.

The suspension was imposed after the applicant allegedly provided COVID-19 vaccine exemptions without medical justification and refused to cooperate with College investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that challenges to the appointment of investigators were premature and that the ICRC's decision to maintain the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's ongoing failure to cooperate and the resulting risk of harm to patients.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in a course of conduct that perpetrated a fraud on investors by raising funds for a specific real estate project and diverting them for other purposes.

The Tribunal ordered administrative fines, disgorgement, costs, and permanent market bans with a limited carve-out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Tribunal's liability findings or sanctions.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The moving parties, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs of $4,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant attempted to appeal an interlocutory order without first obtaining leave from the Divisional Court.

A panel previously directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the appellant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the respondent Police Services Board.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the Chief Building Official's decision and an encroachment permit for a patio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the lower court.

The court held that the lower court properly excluded legal opinions tendered through an expert witness and rejected the argument that the process was unfair due to the issue of prematurity not being raised by the parties.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $4,500 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision of Bezaire J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the parties failed to upload their costs materials to Case Centre as required by the court's practice direction.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dismissing their appeal from an order of the Director.

The appellants argued that the Director improperly implemented a settlement by revoking a prior order and issuing a new one, rather than amending the existing order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal that the form of implementation was immaterial and that the new order substantively implemented the settlement.

The appellant, who was in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

The SBT had dismissed her appeal regarding ODSP's payment of a $476 invoice to a taxi company, finding the issue moot as it did not affect her rights or benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the SBT had no jurisdiction to decide factual disputes for use in other proceedings, such as the appellant's efforts to regain control of her property from the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim order regarding a mobility issue.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the motion judge erred in adjudicating the mobility issue on an interim basis rather than via summary judgment or trial, and whether the correct test and process were applied.

The appeal was expedited and the existing stay was continued pending the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an ODACC adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the leave motion at $30,000, payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the application for judicial review.

The court also granted an interim stay of the impugned payment order pending a motion for an interlocutory stay or further direction from the case management judge.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The self-represented applicant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal, having previously been denied an adjournment.

The Divisional Court panel noted that the order appealed from was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal, which the applicant had not obtained.

The court directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the applicant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant was given twenty days to provide written submissions in response.

The appellant veterinarian appealed three separate decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing penalties including suspensions and costs.

The appellant argued that the proceedings should have been dismissed for abuse of process due to delay and procedural irregularities, that the College's expert evidence should not have been admitted, and that the penalties were clearly unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed all three appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual findings and no errors of law.

The Court held that the statutory referral process was properly followed, the delay was not inordinate and caused no prejudice, the expert evidence was properly admitted, and the penalties and costs were within the Committee's reasonable discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that calculated his partial loss of earnings benefits based on an ability to earn minimum wage.

The applicant argued he was entitled to full benefits because he did not complete his labour market re-entry plan, having voluntarily withdrawn to take a temporary job.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43(4) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for damages arising from a trip and fall on a municipal sidewalk.

The trial judge had found the municipality was not liable under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the state of repair.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to assess the adequacy of the inspections, failed to weigh business record evidence, and reversed the onus of proof.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the inspection adequacy, weighing of evidence, or application of the burden of proof.