David L. Corbett

The applicants sought to challenge Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision requiring security for potential 7-year warranty claims.

The applicants' registration had previously been revoked by a Consent Order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's concern about the risk of major claims was justified and its discretion was exercised reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $22,319.98.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in all respects and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of two determinations made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave 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 and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding party.

The moving party, The Corporation of the City of Peterborough, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

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

The appellant sought judicial review of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

On consent, the Divisional Court quashed the HRTO decisions and remitted the matter for further adjudication without specific directions.

The Court also quashed the LAT decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different adjudicator, with reasons to follow.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers finding her guilty of professional misconduct for physically and emotionally abusing a special needs student and for unprofessional conduct towards colleagues.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred by excluding expert evidence on anti-Black racism, failing to address unconscious bias, improperly assessing credibility, and admitting an investigation report containing hearsay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

While the Committee erred in relying on prior consistent statements, the error did not result in a substantial wrong.

The penalty of a five-month suspension and costs was upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing her applications against her former employer and union.

She alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file grievances for post-layoff job applications, and claimed the OLRB process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bias, that the OLRB's written hearing process afforded procedural fairness, and that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant, a chiropractor, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of 11 acts of professional misconduct, imposing a 15-month suspension, and ordering costs of over $690,000.

The misconduct involved improper block fee billing, unauthorized disclosure of personal health information to a bank during a payment dispute, failing to provide a medical report in a reasonable time, and issuing false or misleading accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability and penalty, finding no errors in the Panel's procedural rulings, evidentiary decisions, or assessment of the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the Panel failed to adequately consider the principle of proportionality, and reduced the costs award to $450,000.

The applicant, a former graduate student, sought judicial review of Toronto Metropolitan University's decisions rejecting his grade appeal, denying a reassessment of his coursework, and dismissing his discrimination complaint.

The Divisional Court found that the university's decisions under its academic policies and human rights procedures were reasonable and that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness throughout the process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of administrative decisions dismissing disciplinary charges against two police officers for lack of jurisdiction.

The hearing officers and the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the six-month statutory deadline under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act for serving a notice of hearing had expired.

The applicants argued that the deadline should be paused during a review by the Complaints Director.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the administrative decision-makers reasonably interpreted the plain wording of the statute, which contained no exception for a Director's review.

The moving parties, comprising various social media companies including Meta, Snap, and TikTok entities, brought motions for leave to appeal the substantive and costs orders of Leiper J. The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal without costs and directed the parties to provide an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The appellant, a self-represented former lawyer, appealed a family law trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to admit his late-served documents into evidence.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant failed to comply with case management directions and offered inadequate explanations for the delay.

The court also observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate how the excluded documents would have materially changed the trial's outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring $4,000,000 from the proceeds of the sale of their property to be paid into court as security for the respondents' damages claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge erred in law by applying the general test for an interlocutory injunction rather than the stringent test for a Mareva injunction.

The court held that there was no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation, no undertaking as to damages was provided, and the alternative argument under Rule 45.02 failed because the respondents sought damages rather than an interest in a specific fund.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion to review a case management judge's orders that required him to perfect his family law appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal for his failure to do so.

During the case management of the review motion, the moving party repeatedly refused to follow court directions, sought sweeping substantive relief beyond the scope of the review, and engaged in relentless debates with the court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the review motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, while also restricting the moving party's future access to the Divisional Court.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

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

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.