David L. Corbett

The self-represented respondent, previously declared a vexatious litigant with a history of internet harassment and collateral attacks, made numerous requests for transcripts of long-concluded court appearances.

The motion judge exercised inherent jurisdiction to deny the requests, finding no legitimate purpose for the transcripts and expressing concern they would be used to relitigate concluded matters or further harass victims.

The judge ruled that future transcript requests by the respondent must be directed or requested by another court or supported by compelling reasons.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding they knowingly registered an invalid bill of sale and breached registration conditions, resulting in an eight-month suspension for the individual appellant and a two-year lien registration prohibition for the corporate appellant.

The Divisional Court upheld the liability findings but allowed the appeal in part on penalty, finding the sanctions were at the high end for an isolated incident and lacking in reasoning linking them to the misconduct.

The sanctions were varied to time completed.

The court released an endorsement correcting an error in its previous reasons for judgment on an application for judicial review.

The court had mistakenly stated that neither party sought costs.

The court amended its reasons to award costs to the successful applicant, fixing them at $17,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Ontario Compensation Fund Subcommittee denying her claim for compensation.

The applicant had suffered significant harm, including sexual harassment and defamation, by a lawyer she retained, and obtained an uncollectible civil judgment against him.

The Subcommittee denied the claim on the basis that it did not meet the definition of 'loss' in its Guidelines, stating it was 'without jurisdiction' to assist.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Subcommittee fettered its broad statutory discretion under section 51(5) of the Law Society Act by treating the non-binding Guidelines as determinative.

The decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review case management directions that struck his 267-page appeal factum and required him to obtain trial transcripts for a Small Claims Court appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the case management judge's directions reasonable and necessary given the moving party's flagrant breach of the Rules respecting transcripts and factums.

The court extended the deadline for the moving party to order transcripts but warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his appeal.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal a decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant mother appealed an enforcement order that granted the respondent father final decision-making authority over their son's medical care and imposed fines on the mother for missed parenting time.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a substantive remedial order under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to address the child's crisis, it was an error to make the order final rather than temporary pending a motion to change.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to be temporary and capping the accrued fines at $1,000.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that her application for statutory accident benefits was time-barred.

The appellant argued the insurer's notice of refusal did not comply with s. 54 of the SABS because it failed to detail all levels of appeal and misleadingly stated a hard two-year limitation period without explaining discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 54 only requires notice of the right to dispute the refusal at the Tribunal, not subsequent appeal rights.

The Court also found the notice was not misleading, as detailing discoverability principles could detract from the clarity of the warning and confuse claimants.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the unreported decision of V. Christie J. dated October 17, 2025.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated February 23, 2026.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, with no costs awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of three by-law enforcement orders issued by the respondent township regarding a bamboo hedge, stored building materials, and a front fence extension.

The applicant argued the orders were unreasonable and that the enforcement process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the bamboo had grown into a non-compliant fence, the stored bricks and stones were building materials, and the trellis additions extended the fence height beyond permitted limits.

The court found no procedural unfairness or bias, noting that any potential unfairness from the denial of a review hearing was cured by the judicial review proceeding itself.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Judge to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion, noting that under section 17 of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from an Associate Judge's order lies as of right to a Superior Court Judge, not the Divisional Court.

Reduced costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party because they failed to use Rule 2.1 to dispose of the motion summarily.

The self-represented applicant failed to serve and file his application record and factum by the deadline set in a prior case management direction.

Despite being warned that his attempt to seek leave to appeal did not stay the court's directions and being offered a short extension, the applicant defied the court's orders and claimed the court had forfeited jurisdiction due to bias.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review due to the applicant's repeated failure to follow case management directions and his ungovernable conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of WSIAT decisions that dismissed his appeals regarding the quantification of his benefits for a workplace knee injury.

The applicant raised numerous procedural and substantive objections, including allegations of Charter and human rights violations, bias, and unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's procedures were fair, its jurisdictional findings were correct, and its factual determinations were reasonable given the evidence and the applicant's refusal to participate in an oral hearing.

The appellant dentist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Committee found the appellant had sexual relations with two patients, failed to document informed consent, breached opioid prescribing guidelines, and directed staff to file false insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors in principle.

The court upheld the mandatory revocation of the appellant's license and the Committee's costs award of over $450,000, and awarded $15,000 in costs for the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Akazaki J. dated January 14, 2026.

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

The moving party brought a motion for a stay pending the appeal of a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 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 without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Corthorn J. dated January 28, 2026.

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

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear their appeal regarding the cancellation of their income support.

The Director had cancelled their benefits and denied an extension of time to request an internal review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's decision to hold an in-writing hearing and concluding that the Tribunal correctly applied binding precedent in determining it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of an extension of time for an internal review.