David L. Corbett

The defendants, having been entirely successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $65,981.09.

The court found the plaintiff's claim improper and vexatious, constituting a collateral attack on prior Italian and Ontario enforcement judgments.

The court accepted the defendants' claimed time and hourly rates, finding minor duplication between senior and junior counsel necessary and not warranting a discount.

The court deemed the defendants' overall costs claim reasonable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties, fixing costs at $65,981.09, payable by the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed a building permit issued by the Chief Building Officer (CBO) for an accessory building on a lakeside residential property.

The property was a non-complying lot because it did not border a street, making the determination of lot lines and setbacks under the zoning by-law ambiguous.

The CBO reasonably interpreted the by-law to conclude that all lot lines were side lot lines, and issued the permit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appeals judge erred by applying a correctness standard of review and improperly considering land use planning principles from the Official Plan.

The CBO's decision was restored as it was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her complaint against the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), the City of Windsor, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the SBT based on adjudicative immunity, and against the other respondents under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the issues had already been authoritatively decided by the SBT.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and that the applicant's proper remedy was to appeal the SBT decision rather than launch a collateral attack via a human rights complaint.

The tenant and occupant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy on the basis that the tenant illegally transferred possession of the unit to his sister.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by assuming a person can only have one residence and failing to properly apply the test for transfer of occupancy under s. 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the landlord's application was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's refusal to grant default judgment against two defendants who failed to defend a claim for unpaid private copying levies.

The motion judge had declined default judgment, citing an unpleaded allegation of fraud and requiring oral evidence of the quantity and nature of the blank media.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the statement of claim did not plead fraud and that the defendants were deemed to admit the pleaded facts regarding the quantity and nature of the media under Rule 19.02.

Default judgment was granted.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the City met most of the test for an extension, the proposed appeal was patently without merit.

The underlying decision was interlocutory, and there is an absolute prohibition against appealing interlocutory decisions of the Small Claims Court.

The appellant, J.L., appealed a Crown wardship order without access for his child, JLC, and sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding JLC's native heritage.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it did not meet the test.

The court also rejected the procedural unfairness argument regarding J.L.'s exclusion from the courtroom, deeming the trial judge's actions reasonable given J.L.'s disruptive behavior.

The Crown wardship decision was upheld, as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding J.L.'s drug abuse and anti-social behavior posed a significant risk to JLC.

Regarding access, the court found the trial judge erred in conflating "beneficial" and "meaningful" in the s.59(2.1) test of the Child and Family Services Act, but ultimately upheld the denial of access.

The court concluded that access would not be beneficial to JLC due to J.L.'s inability to control emotions and behavior, and would impair JLC's future adoption opportunities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the self-represented defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant's employment had previously been terminated for refusing a security clearance check, leading to an injunction and a subsequent contempt finding against her.

The court found that the defendant's counterclaim, which alleged wrongful accusations and Charter violations, did not disclose any tenable claims and that any abuse of process claims were premature.

The counterclaim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought security for child support and s.7 expenses due to the respondent's history of payment default and negative animus.

The parties had previously agreed on the form of security and some specific expense reimbursements.

The court determined the quantum of security, ordering $250,000 to cover reasonably foreseeable future support obligations, to be held in the respondent's counsel's trust account.

The decision also addressed the process for future costs submissions.

This motion addressed a dispute arising from a 2014 settlement concerning the care and property management of an elderly woman, Deolinda De Melo, who was found incapable of managing her property due to Alzheimer's disease.

The applicant, Maria Melo-Avelino (daughter), sought to declare the settlement void or set it aside due to alleged breaches and to be appointed attorney under 2011 powers of attorney.

The respondent, Carlos De Melo (son), opposed this.

The court terminated the settlement agreement and the associated trust, revived a 2014 order directing the validity of competing powers of attorney to trial, and provided interim directions regarding property protection and access, while declining to require a formal accounting from Carlos at this stage.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing its application to review orders to pay unpaid wages.

The Board dismissed the application because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to pay the ordered amounts in trust.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's refusal to grant an extension of time was reasonable, noting the urgency inherent in the payment of wages to employees.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal's decision refusing his third request for reconsideration of a 2007 decision denying him benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The applicant had previously exhausted all appeals, including to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's decision not to order a further reconsideration was reasonable, as the applicant was merely attempting to reargue issues already decided.

The landlord appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring him to pay the tenant's last month's rent deposit, out-of-pocket expenses, and a rent abatement.

The landlord argued he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the landlord was responsible for not receiving the notice was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The plaintiff, Lang Michener LLP, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant, Gregory King's, counterclaims alleging professional negligence in the defense of an Italian judgment enforcement action and negligent advice regarding a limitation period for suing his insurer, LawPro.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the counterclaims.

The court found the negligence claim regarding the defense of the enforcement action to be an impermissible collateral attack on prior judicial decisions and devoid of substance.

The claim regarding negligent advice about LawPro was dismissed because King's claim against LawPro was already time-barred and not covered by the insurance policy, thus no damages were suffered.

King, a lawyer, sued his former firm Gowling and partner O'Toole for indemnity and negligent advice related to an Italian judgment against him.

The court dismissed King's claim for indemnity against Gowling, finding the underlying causes of action predated his time at the firm.

King's claim against O'Toole for negligent advice regarding reporting to LawPro was dismissed due to the expiry of the limitation period.

However, King's claim against O'Toole for negligent advice not to attorn to the Italian courts was allowed to proceed to trial, as the court found a triable issue regarding when the loss for that specific advice was discovered for limitation purposes.

The plaintiff, Gregory King, brought claims against Italian lawyers and their firm (the Italian Defendants) alleging conflict of interest and misconduct in prior Italian legal proceedings that resulted in a judgment against King.

The Italian Defendants moved to dismiss King's claims for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court found no real and substantial connection between King's claims and Ontario, as the alleged conduct occurred in Italy, the defendants did not carry on business in Ontario, and any related contract was primarily Italian.

The court also determined that Italy was clearly the more convenient forum, given the location of witnesses, applicable Italian law, and the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

Consequently, the court dismissed King's entire action against the Italian Defendants.

The maternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her two grandchildren pending her appeal of a trial decision granting Crown wardship without access.

Due to systemic delays, the motion was heard two months after access had been terminated and a good-bye visit had occurred.

The court found that while access with one child had been meaningful, restoring access now would expose the child to the risk of a second final separation if the appeal failed.

Assessing the appeal as unlikely to succeed, the court concluded that restoring access was not in the child's best interests and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff requested authorization via teleconference to sign back an offer to purchase a disputed property.

The property was listed at $249,000 and an offer of $180,000 was received.

The plaintiff sought to counteroffer at $225,000 without disclosing the offeror's identity to the defendant, fearing interference.

The court authorized the plaintiff to sign back the offer at $225,000 or lower, provided that any resulting agreement of purchase and sale remains subject to court approval where the purchaser's identity must be disclosed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiffs sought an interim order for costs against the LawPro defendants to fund their action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and negligent investigation arising from a prior arson prosecution.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity with robust particularity, as they had substantial real estate equity and failed to account for over $1.2 million previously paid to them by LawPro.

Furthermore, the court found no special circumstances warranting an advance costs order, as the case was a private dispute without a broader public interest.