David L. Corbett

The applicant tenant sought to review a decision denying an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the applicant had not paid rent since March 2024 and his allegations against government entities did not provide a legal excuse for non-payment.

After the applicant repeatedly failed to provide a reasoned legal basis for his review motion, the court dismissed the motion as frivolous and vexatious.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not commence or continue any legal proceeding against the respondent landlord without prior written permission from an administrative judge.

The moving parties brought a motion for mandamus and related relief in the context of an ongoing landlord and tenant appeal.

The Divisional Court struck out the motion as an abuse of process, noting the moving parties' stream of vexatious attacks on scheduling orders.

The court ordered that the moving parties are foreclosed from bringing any further motions or proceedings in the court without prior permission 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 and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Sutherland J. dated July 24, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs in the amount of $4,520.56 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 9, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision of Parghi J. dated July 5, 2024.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's prompt payment determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court adjourned the application because the applicant failed to serve notice on the Attorney General as required by s. 9(4) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also directed the applicant to serve notice on the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC) due to issues concerning jurisdiction, process, and the public release of adjudication decisions.

The appellant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering a spinal cord hemorrhage and paraplegia following a stressful incident involving aggressive driving by motorcyclists and her driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied benefits, finding the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the Tribunal's analysis of the expert medical evidence unreasonable and its application of the intervening cause and dominant feature tests legally flawed.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a Specified Continuing Education Program and be cautioned after he erroneously extracted a healthy adult tooth from a minor patient instead of a supernumerary tooth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision to uphold the ICRC's findings—including that the applicant should have taken additional steps to verify the correct tooth and that expert evidence was not required to interpret intraoperative x-rays—was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal appeal division decision upholding a finding that the respondent was of good character and could be licensed to practice law, subject to a condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors.

The respondent had committed historical acts of sexual abuse against minors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably applied the Armstrong factors to assess good character, adequately considered the public interest and the protection of children, and reasonably imposed the licensing condition based on the respondent's voluntary undertaking.

The court also continued the anonymization order protecting the respondent's identity to safeguard the privacy interests of his children.

The applicant commenced a proceeding that was substantially identical to a prior proceeding dismissed by the Divisional Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure indicating its intention to dismiss the proceeding and restrict the applicant's access to the courts.

Finding that the applicant's allegations were not grounded in objective reality and that the litigation was the product of mental illness, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not commence or continue any legal proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice without prior written permission from a judge.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of MacLeod RSJ dated May 17, 2024.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision granting the responding party leave to commence an action under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, identifying specific questions regarding whether the motions judge erred in holding that the Court of Appeal erred in a previous decision, and whether such an error rendered the decision unsafe.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $20,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Superior Court of Justice decision dated June 24, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for a stay and for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and leave to appeal paragraph 3 of the order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding whether the motions judge erred in deciding an evidentiary issue on a final basis.

Costs of $7,200 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to purchase the respondent's minority shares in a corporation.

The motion judge made the order to advance the litigation, finding that both parties ultimately wanted a share buyout.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the issue of a compelled share purchase was not formally before the motion judge, and that a finding of oppression was required first.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had notice of the argument, suffered no prejudice, and that the court had broad discretion under the Business Corporations Act to order a share purchase without a finding of oppression.

The self-represented applicant, a massage therapist, sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.

The applicant mistakenly believed the College had made a finding of professional misconduct regarding testimonials on a Google Maps listing.

The Divisional Court clarified that the College had only disposed of the matter administratively by requiring corrective actions and training.

Finding the College's disposition reasonable and noting the applicant's ability to remove the offending listing, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The appellant occupied the home and paid no child or spousal support, arguing that his payment of carrying costs on investment properties was sufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The court noted that the appellant's failure to pay support left him with unclean hands, and his claim of high carrying costs undermined his argument that the parties could afford to retain the home pending further litigation.

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, sought an urgent stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending a review of a single judge's order that had dismissed his appeal for delay and lifted the stay.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried regarding the dismissal for delay, as the tenant had breached a court-ordered schedule without a plausible explanation.

The balance of convenience also favoured the landlord due to the tenant's history of non-payment of rent and delay tactics.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

However, because court staff had misdirected the tenant regarding the proper appellate route, the court granted an extension of time to bring the review motion.

The appellant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT Vice-Chair erred in law by providing inadequate, conclusory reasons and conflating the test for 'reasonable and necessary' expenses with procedural non-compliance.

The court set aside the LAT decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.