David L. Corbett

The self-represented applicant appeared before the court to address his conduct in advancing multiple applications regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother.

During the hearing, the applicant was belligerent, disrespectful, and repeatedly interrupted the judge, leading to a finding of contempt in the face of the court.

The court sentenced the applicant to three days of time served.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that the applicant be prohibited from commencing further proceedings related to the 2006 incident without prior judicial permission.

The court also dismissed the applicant's latest application under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the executive officer of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care terminating its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program due to overbilling.

The pharmacy argued the executive officer only had the power to suspend, not terminate, privileges under the statute, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the executive officer's decision to revoke privileges was reasonable, within her authority, and procedurally fair.

The respondent Commission brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to challenge a 2017 decision of the Commission regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother, an issue already decided in a prior 2019 decision.

The court found the application to be an abuse of process, noting the applicant's misuse of fee waivers and improper direct communications with judges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to appear to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to further restrictions.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant preventing the defendants from soliciting their alarm security customers, and to restrain the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the restrictive covenant, finding that the plaintiffs' rebranding and refusal to provide customer lists made compliance impractical.

However, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs or as authorized by them, citing clear evidence of dishonest sales tactics.

Ms. Atas, a litigant in numerous proceedings, improperly communicated directly with the court via email, requesting a stay of a prior s. 140 judgment pending an appeal, without a formal motion, notice to other parties, or evidence.

The court noted that Ms. Atas had been repeatedly warned against such communications and had previously apologized for similar conduct.

The court deemed the communication wholly improper and ordered that at the next case management conference, a date would be set for Ms. Atas to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt of court.

This case management endorsement sets the date for the next conference, outlines procedures for adding agenda items, and provides a timeline for future conferences.

It also confirms the dismissal of proceedings against specific parties (the Chahals).

The accused faced multiple charges relating to drug and firearms trafficking arising from a major police investigation involving wiretaps and surveillance.

The court found the primary target guilty of all charges based on overwhelming intercept and surveillance evidence.

Another accused was found guilty of purchasing a firearm and trafficking marijuana.

However, charges against two other accused were dismissed due to insufficient voice identification evidence and the legal principle that a mere purchaser in a bilateral transaction is not guilty of conspiracy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles regarding a boundary dispute between neighbouring lakefront properties.

The issue was whether the metes and bounds description in the registered deed and plan of subdivision, which contained a mathematical error, or an original wooden surveyor's stake should govern the boundary line.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a registered description generally governs, where it demonstrably fails to express the grantor's true intention, original surveyors' monuments take precedence.

The court affirmed the application of the hierarchy of boundary evidence and section 9 of the Surveys Act.

The applicant, an Official Veterinarian, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal of the Registrar's decision to rescind her approval.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the Panel's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, which explicitly provides a right of appeal to the Panel for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

Nadire Atas sought two further orders in a s.140 application, which had already been merged into a February 2018 judgment and previously denied.

An urgent case management conference was held on March 26, 2019, at Ms. Atas's insistence, to address these requests.

The court found Ms. Atas's assertions about prior events to be false and her conduct vexatious, as she failed to adequately prepare and relitigated decided issues.

The court awarded costs of $1,000 to Gary Caplan's clients, payable by Ms. Atas, as an indemnity for the expense incurred due to her actions.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the plaintiffs' claim for breach of informant privilege under Rule 21.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by absolute privilege, which protects statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the law is unsettled and it is not plain and obvious that a claim for breach of informant privilege cannot form an exception to absolute privilege.

The accused, a former primary school teacher, was tried on multiple historical sexual offences against four male complainants spanning more than two decades.

The court applied the W.D. framework, admitted similar fact reasoning for three complainants, and found a consistent pattern of grooming and sexualized touching involving lap-sitting, touching of buttocks and genitals, and exploitation of the accused's role as a trusted teacher.

The court rejected the defence theory that the allegations were fabricated out of communal anger over an earlier unrelated allegation, and found the accused and his mother not credible.

The evidence of the complainants, supported in part by an independent student teacher witness, proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's decision regarding the use of a prior civil judgment in disciplinary proceedings against him.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the merits and a correctness standard to the issue of abuse of process.

Finding no error in the Hearing Panel's reasons, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded agreed costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering joint custody, imputing the father's income for child support, and awarding costs to the father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was a necessary and appropriate response to the mother's severe gatekeeping behaviour, which included unilateral decision-making and false allegations.

The court also upheld the trial judge's imputation of the father's income based on the available evidence, noting that neither party had provided a professional valuation at trial.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The court addressed a procedural dispute concerning the issuance of two orders and the scheduling of a case management conference.

The self-represented respondent initially requested urgent orders for an appeal but subsequently resisted the scheduled conference.

The court affirmed that the conference would proceed as scheduled, emphasizing the impropriety of a party unilaterally expressing disagreement with a judicial decision regarding a conference.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the bargaining agent for four construction workers.

The applicant challenged the Board's evidentiary ruling that prevented its site superintendent from testifying about his relationship with other on-site workers not subject to the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to exclude the evidence as irrelevant was reasonable, as the applicant had expressly confirmed it was not challenging the size of the bargaining unit.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, made a request for an urgent case conference to address issues of bias and constitutional questions.

The court denied the request, directing that these matters be raised at the next scheduled case management conference in April 2019.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment decision finding his child in need of protection and placing her in the custody of the respondent mother.

The child had threatened suicide during access visits, which the motions judge found was proximately caused by the father's inappropriate conduct and obsession with proving parental alienation syndrome.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in relying on the available evidence.

The court also noted that the significant delay in perfecting the appeal rendered the requested remedy of a new trial impractical given the child's age and consistent refusal to see the father.

This case management endorsement addresses disagreements between the parties regarding the precise wording of a draft interlocutory injunction order.

The court clarifies several points, including that relief not pursued during oral argument (removal of internet publications) will not be included in the order.

It also provides directions on the evidence to be referenced in the preamble and the operative language for continuing interim orders, and sets deadlines for further submissions on unresolved drafting issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university discipline board decision that upheld a tribunal's finding of academic dishonesty regarding his doctoral thesis.

The tribunal had denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing and penalty phase in his absence, ultimately recommending his degree be cancelled and he be expelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decisions to deny the adjournment and proceed immediately to penalty were procedurally fair and reasonable given the extensive history of delay, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and the prior notice provided to the applicant.