David L. Corbett

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that summarily dismissed his complaints regarding his treatment at the respondent facility.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and negligence, claiming his medical records contained errors and his condition was not as serious as indicated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the complaint did not raise a serious issue of discrimination on a prohibited ground.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order dated February 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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 party brought a motion for leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in respect to both impugned orders and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal an earlier order of Cameron J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

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

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, failed to attend her scheduled appeal hearing, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.

She brought a motion to set aside the dismissal, claiming she had inadvertently mis-diarized the date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding her explanation lacked credibility given her history of delay and past dishonesty to the court.

The court also noted the appeal lacked apparent merit, was technically out of time, and that rescheduling would waste scarce judicial resources.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a 2021 group grievance as an abuse of process.

The arbitrator had concluded the grievance was identical in substance to a 2017 grievance that was settled by a consent award.

In doing so, the arbitrator relied on her own notes and recollections from the without-prejudice mediation of the 2017 grievance, without notice to the union.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable as she failed to analyze the actual settlement agreement to determine if the union had impliedly accepted the employer's position.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to enforce a Building Code compliance order regarding an unpermitted dwelling unit.

The application judge had found that the building official's act of looking through the window of a storage unit constituted an unlawful warrantless search of a dwelling unit and excluded the evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the official was authorized by statute to inspect the property and that looking through the window of a building not permitted as a dwelling unit did not constitute an unlawful entry into a dwelling unit.

The compliance order was enforced.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The tenants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that dismissed their motion to void a prior eviction order.

The LTB argued that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory LTB decision.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no statutory provision in the Residential Tenancies Act or the Courts of Justice Act conferring such jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to pursue their remedies at the LTB.

The tenants appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for non-payment of rent and awarded partial rent abatements for maintenance issues.

The tenants argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, failed to find serious breaches by the landlords that would preclude eviction, and exhibited bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable, the tenants were not entitled to self-abate rent, and the minor errors alleged did not warrant interference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) upholding the dismissal of his complaints against seven police officers.

The complaints alleged police misconduct related to investigations of conflicts arising from a family law dispute, including recording an incorrect witness name, failing to meet disclosure obligations, and failing to enforce COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers acted in good faith and within their discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory case management and scheduling directions made by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering the dismissal of the application as premature.

The court found that the HPARB's directions did not finally dispose of any substantive issues and were unambiguously interlocutory.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against reviewing interlocutory administrative decisions, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim regarding two leased trucks and granting the respondents' counterclaim.

The appellants argued the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding there was a sticker on the passenger side door of the truck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants could not raise a new factual argument on appeal that was not put to witnesses or argued at trial.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, as the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents.

The defendant hospitals brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's civil proceedings, which arose from the termination of his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment of the motion pending the disposition of his related appeals before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and a review motion in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that the results of the administrative proceedings could impact the viability of the civil claims, and stayed the civil proceeding in the interim.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment and costs endorsement regarding a construction contract dispute.

The trial judge had found the appellant's evidence not credible, rejected its claims for extras, and accepted the respondent's evidence regarding back charges and costs to complete.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were available on the record and her approach to contract accounting was correct.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $7,500 awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Review Board which found that their top-loading manure tank was not a normal farm practice due to significant non-compliance with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Board had ordered the appellants to cease using the tank within 24 months after finding the respondents were directly affected by an odour disturbance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its conclusion that the 166-foot deviation from the guidelines precluded the tank from being a normal farm practice.