David L. Corbett

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress arising from workplace bullying and harassment.

The Board concluded that the injury would be compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, relying on previous tribunal decisions that found the acute mental stress limitation unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and declining to consider new arguments regarding the employment function bar and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that were not raised before the Board.

Nadire Atas requested an urgent case management conference to pursue allegations of judicial bias on motion.

The court determined the request was not urgent and directed that the matter could be raised at the next regularly scheduled case management conference, anticipated for April 2019.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of its employees, pending judicial review.

The employer argued it would suffer irreparable harm by being forced to choose between pursuing judicial review or complying with its obligation to bargain in good faith, and by expending unrecoverable resources on collective bargaining.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the employer could bargain in good faith while reserving its rights pending judicial review, and that mutual, unremarkable process costs do not constitute irreparable harm.

The self-represented litigant requested an early case management conference, potentially by telephone, to raise unspecified constitutional questions.

The court declined to schedule an early conference without particulars of the issues and how they bear on the litigation.

The court also refused the request for a telephone conference, noting that given the litigant's past allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias, conferences should proceed in a courtroom where they can be recorded.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned after the father's counsel was removed from the record due to loss of contact following his release from jail.

The father failed to inquire about the appeal or provide a parenting plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned and alternatively on the merits, noting that further delay would prejudice the child by delaying a potential adoption.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that awarded her $10,000 for an ankle injury sustained in a slip and fall, but dismissed her claim that the fall caused or exacerbated a neck injury.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider the evidence holistically to infer causation.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no error in the trial judge's analysis of causation.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a child protection appeal, the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to admit fresh evidence regarding the views and preferences of the nearly 16-year-old child.

The appellant requested an adjournment to file responding evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence and denied the adjournment, finding that the appellant had the evidence for two weeks, which was sufficient time to respond with reasonable diligence, and that child protection cases must take priority.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licensing Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Divisional Court endorsed the settlement, explicitly noting that its endorsement should not be taken as approval of the Tribunal's reasoning in the case.

The appellant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, appealed a decision dismissing his application for permission to proceed and to set aside the vexatious litigant order.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, noting that section 140(4)(e) of the Courts of Justice Act explicitly bars appeals from a refusal to grant such relief.

Additionally, due to the appellant's serial abuse of the court process, the court ordered that he may not apply for or accept a fee waiver in any future proceeding without first obtaining a judge's order.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.

The self-represented appellant appealed a final order enforcing a $35,000 settlement.

He argued the motion judge denied him procedural fairness by refusing to hear his arguments or receive his materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had heard and considered the appellant's arguments.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's factual determination that a settlement was reached and was not unconscionable.

The self-represented moving party, previously declared a vexatious litigant, was found in contempt of court and sentenced to a brief period of incarceration.

She sought to appeal the contempt finding but was advised by the Court of Appeal that she required permission from the Superior Court.

The case management judge granted her permission to appeal the contempt finding and custodial sentence, dispensing with the requirement to apply for leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, noting that her liberty interest was engaged and the appearance of justice required she be permitted to appeal.

The plaintiff, an elderly mother, brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against her daughter and son-in-law's family home, alleging they used her funds to purchase it.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's claims lacked substance and that she had previously transferred property to them with independent legal advice.

The court dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation, finding that the plaintiff's delay, the availability of damages as an adequate remedy, and the debatable merits of her claim did not justify tying up the defendants' property.

The court also provided guidance on outstanding discovery refusals and adjourned that portion of the motion.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and provides case management directions for Nadire Atas, who has been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed Ms. Atas's motion for recusal of the case management judge, finding no merit in her arguments regarding functus officio or apprehended bias.

The court also dismissed Ms. Atas's claims against the Chavalis and her counterclaims in the defamation proceedings due to her persistent failure to make required "Chavali requests" to advance them.

However, the court set aside the notings in default against Ms. Atas in the defamation proceedings to allow her to defend on the merits.

Further directions were given for motions for summary judgment in the defamation proceedings, dismissal motions by Peoples Trust and LawPro Defendants, and an interlocutory injunction motion.

The court emphasized the need for Ms. Atas to comply with case management orders to move the litigation forward, despite her ongoing appeals of the vexatious litigant declaration.

This decision provides reasons for citing Nadire Atas for four incidents of contempt of court and outlines the subsequent sentencing.

The contempt findings relate to repeated improper communications with the court, failure to attend a mandatory case management conference, disrespectful conduct towards the court, and failure to pay court fees or properly obtain a fee waiver.

The court emphasizes the importance of obeying court orders, the finality of judicial decisions, and the proper procedure for raising issues like bias or functus officio.

Sentences included a one-year suspended sentence for improper communications, an absolute discharge for the fee waiver issue (after purging contempt), a six-month conditional sentence for insolence, and a five-day jail sentence for failing to attend court.

The plaintiff commercial landlord sought summary judgment against an indemnifier for unpaid rent and charges under two commercial leases.

The court determined that the landlord's demand for a fee to consent to a change in corporate control, while unreasonable, did not release the indemnifier from their obligations.

The indemnifier was found liable for the tenant's obligations under both leases, subject to specific reductions in the landlord's claimed damages for historic, unbilled expenses.

Andre Hidi appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge had found him guilty based on an off-duty police officer's observations of "horrible" driving, an odour of alcohol, and the appellant's testimony of alcohol consumption, despite the exclusion of breathalyzer data.

The appellant raised five grounds of appeal, primarily challenging the trial judge's factual findings, credibility assessments, and the application of legal principles regarding evidence inconsistent with impairment.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's deference on factual findings and credibility, and clarifying the interpretation of "horrible driving" in conjunction with other evidence to infer impairment, particularly distinguishing and adopting the analysis in *R. v. Kumric* over *R. v. Singh*.

Nadire Atas, a litigant previously declared vexatious, sought fee waivers for four ongoing defamation proceedings.

The court denied her request, reiterating that she failed to provide proper evidence of financial need or demonstrate that waiving fees would serve the interests of justice, as required by previous judicial directions.

The court noted her continued vexatious conduct and dismissed the request without prejudice, conditional on her paying the filing fee for the current motion.

This endorsement addresses multiple ongoing civil procedure matters involving Nadire Atas, including her motion to set aside notings in default, the plaintiffs' motions for interlocutory injunctions and summary judgment in defamation actions, and contempt proceedings against Ms. Atas.

The court provided scheduling orders, clarified Ms. Atas's obligations regarding her motion to set aside default, and addressed her non-compliance with court orders, leading to a finding of civil contempt.

The court also discussed Ms. Atas's attempts to obtain transcripts and seek stays of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, emphasizing the distinct nature of the contempt finding from her prior appeal.

The defendant, Nadire Atas, sought an extension of time to bring a motion to set aside a noting in default in defamation proceedings.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that while the defendant was not precluded from bringing such a motion later, her continuing delay could prejudice any subsequent motion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that an appeal deadline in the Court of Appeal justified further delay in the Superior Court, noting that the defendant had not raised this conflict with the Court of Appeal judge.

The court found that the plaintiffs had been prejudiced by the ongoing delays.