David L. Corbett

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.

The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.

The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision to sanction her for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The sanctions arose from the applicant's conduct and statements, including social media posts, criticizing the board and fellow trustees.

The applicant argued the decision infringed her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that she was denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, proportionately balanced the applicant's expressive rights with the statutory objectives of the Education Act, and afforded her adequate procedural fairness.

The applicant moved before a panel of the Divisional Court to review a single motions judge's decision that reconstituted his appeal as an application for judicial review and denied a stay pending the hearing.

The panel found no error in principle in the motions judge's conclusion that there would be no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured respecting the university's autonomy in managing academic affairs.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) dismissing his claims for income replacement benefits on the basis of res judicata.

The appellant argued that the prior LAT decision only addressed the quantum of benefits, not liability, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT correctly applied the four preconditions for res judicata and that a party cannot ignore a final LAT decision to recommence the same claims.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in adjudicating the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) confirming the London Police Service Chief's dismissal of his police misconduct complaint.

The applicant had complained that an officer acted improperly by refusing to investigate his former partner for child abduction and by directing him to leave the police station.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the officer had properly exercised his discretion, as the children were not missing but residing with their mother pursuant to a family court order.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal the decision of Charney J. was dismissed as abandoned.

The responding party was awarded costs in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior decision and brought a motion for the production of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and dismissed the motion for document production without prejudice to steps that could be taken in the Superior Court.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the responding parties.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for failing to meet payment terms in a prior consent order.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding without notice and that she had since paid her arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 78(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act expressly permits hearings without notice in these circumstances.

The court also held that an appeal is not a de novo hearing and subsequent payments do not cure defaults that existed at the time of the LTB hearing.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraph 2 of a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to upload a costs outline.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

The applicant moved for a stay of a prompt payment adjudication order under the Construction Act requiring it to pay approximately $685,000 to the respondent, pending an application for judicial review.

The respondent consented to the stay on the condition that the full amount be paid into court.

The applicant argued against this condition, citing irreparable harm and balance of convenience.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm if the money was paid into court, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured requiring payment into court.

The stay was granted on the condition that the applicant pay $700,000 into court.

The moving party sought to review a judge's direction refusing to schedule a motion to extend the time for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to the moving party's lengthy, unexplained delay and failure to comply with previous court orders.

Finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain the delay or demonstrate arguable merit in the underlying application, the court dismissed the motion to review.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment that granted the respondent subcontractor a personal judgment for a structural steel subcontract and a valid lien for a miscellaneous metals subcontract.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that its lien rights for the structural steel subcontract had expired because they were not preserved separately from the miscellaneous metals subcontract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Construction Lien Act, a subcontractor's lien rights do not expire on a subcontract-by-subcontract basis, but rather persist until 45 days after the date of last supply of services or materials to the improvement.

The respondent was granted judgment and lien remedies for the aggregate amount of both subcontracts.

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated April 5, 2024.

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

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

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

The applicant sought judicial review of two prompt payment adjudications under the Construction Act, arguing procedural unfairness.

The applicant alleged the respondent raised new reasons for non-payment not detailed in its Notices of Non-Payment and that the adjudicators unfairly denied the applicant's request to deliver reply submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicators reasonably concluded the respondent merely elaborated on its original reasons, and the refusal of reply submissions accorded with the Act and the parties' agreed process.