David L. Corbett

The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that the affidavit evidence could be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record, as the Tribunal had declined to provide a transcript without a court order.

The court directed the parties on the process for seeking production of the transcript.

The moving party tenant brought a motion for a stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

During the hearing, the self-represented parties reached a settlement.

The court issued a consent order staying the eviction and the underlying intended application, conditional on the tenant paying ongoing monthly rent and making scheduled payments towards $4,250 in rent arrears.

If the tenant defaults, the landlord may request the stay be lifted; if the arrears are paid in full, the tenant may request the eviction order be quashed on consent.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

A case management judge ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and a portion of the arrears to maintain the statutory stay of eviction pending the appeal.

The tenant failed to pay and brought a motion to review the interim payment order under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, along with a motion to stay the interim order pending the review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious issue to be heard and that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the landlord due to the tenant's long-term failure to pay rent.

The Court lifted the stay of the eviction order and directed immediate enforcement, emphasizing that the appeal process cannot be used to obtain rent-free living.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 27, 2025.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of ten Cate J. dated December 31, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of J.K. Trimble J. dated November 26, 2025.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the appeal to be expedited.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal and fixed at $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated February 4, 2026.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision that refused to renew their mortgage broker licences and imposed $70,000 in administrative penalties.

The Divisional Court declined to review the licensing decision, finding that the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal, which they had failed to perfect.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the court upheld the administrative penalties, concluding that the Tribunal's findings regarding the applicants' failure to cooperate and the economic benefit derived from delaying the proceedings were amply supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order requiring the production of the deceased's counselling records from 2005 to 2009 in a will challenge alleging undue influence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by applying a low threshold that permitted a fishing expedition for sensitive personal information.

The court also found a palpable and overriding error in relying on the absence of evidence of undue influence in the two years prior to the will's execution to justify broader disclosure.

The order for production was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants, who provided negligent legal services to the respondent despite not being licensed to do so, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $41,000 in damages.

The appellants argued the motion judge decided the case on a novel theory of liability—failure to advise—that was not pleaded, denying them a fair opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was clearly raised in the pleadings and motion materials.

The court also dismissed the appeal of the costs award, noting leave to appeal costs had not been sought.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his application for a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator's reasons were inadequate, conclusory, and failed to account for extensive expert medical evidence regarding the appellant's traumatic brain injury.

The court held that the adjudicator made factual findings without evidentiary support, particularly regarding the appellant's volunteer activities.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of B. MacFarlane J. dated September 9, 2025.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator in an Ontario Dispute Adjudication of Construction Contractors case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of a determination made by an adjudicator under the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contractors (ODACC).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two prior orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,313.06.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that imposed conditions on the respondents' motor vehicle salesperson registrations rather than revoking them.

The respondents, principals of a car dealership, had failed to supervise employees who engaged in repeated dishonest conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT erred in principle by failing to ascribe appropriate regulatory responsibility to the respondents for the repeated misconduct and by failing to consider the overall context of the business operations.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a fresh hearing on remedy before a different adjudicator.