David L. Corbett

The applicant sought to stay the tax sale of his commercial condominium due to property tax arrears, claiming he was entitled to tax relief for sickness or extreme poverty.

The respondent municipality brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application based on a prior settlement agreement.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement to dismiss the application without costs.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's underlying claim for tax relief fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assessment Review Board, and the applicant failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell while chasing a rolling shopping cart in a sloped parking garage at a shopping mall.

The defendant mall owners moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's 'unsafe parking lot' theory, as the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that the ramp complied with safety standards.

However, the court deferred judgment on the 'unsafe shopping cart' theory, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleadings, demand a defence from the retailer that provided the cart, and obtain expert evidence.

The applicant father sought the return of his two youngest children to Bahrain after the respondent mother brought them to Ontario following a vacation in Pakistan.

The father had obtained a sole custody order in Bahrain without notice to the mother.

The court found that while the children were habitually resident in Bahrain, Ontario should assume jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the family's strong connections to Ontario, evidence of domestic violence, and the discriminatory nature of Bahraini family law.

The court declined to recognize the Bahraini custody order and granted temporary sole custody to the mother.

The defendant Crown brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for failing to comply with the 60-day notice requirement under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The plaintiff, an inmate who was assaulted by another inmate, argued that incident reports and statements given at the time of the assault constituted sufficient notice.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the initial reports contained no element of complaint against the Crown.

The action was commenced less than 60 days after formal written notice was provided by the plaintiff's counsel, rendering the action a nullity.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final trial judgment regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and access.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking to vary custody to joint custody, alter the access schedule, and obtain a section 9 offset for child support.

The court dismissed the father's requests to vary custody and access, finding no material change in circumstances.

The court established structured mechanisms for settling future access schedules and section 7 expenses to minimize conflict.

The father's claim of undue hardship regarding child support arrears was deferred to a subsequent hearing to allow for proper evidentiary records.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, Nadire Atas, from publishing defamatory statements about them.

The court granted the injunction, applying the RJR Macdonald test.

It found a serious issue to be tried, noting the defendant's systematic campaign of character assault and the unlikelihood of justifying the statements.

Irreparable harm was established due to the widespread online publication and the defendant's impecuniosity, rendering damages an inadequate remedy.

The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, given the protracted nature of the litigation and the defendant's attempts to circumvent case management.

The court also noted the defendant's failure to deliver a statement of defence but based its decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs sued Greenpeace Canada for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations regarding statements about the plaintiffs' logging activities.

In its statement of defence, Greenpeace pleaded qualified privilege and a moral duty to publish the statements.

In reply, the plaintiffs pleaded sweeping allegations about the historical conduct of international Greenpeace organizations.

Greenpeace appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike these portions of the reply.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the impugned paragraphs, finding they would improperly expand the scope of the litigation into an inquiry of the entire global Greenpeace movement, causing prejudice that outweighed any probative value.

The parties sought directions concerning the form of the order following the disposition of an appeal in a defamation action.

The parties disagreed on the scope of issues to be sent back for re-trial.

The Divisional Court agreed with the appellant that the new trial judge should not be bound by the previous trial judge's findings on fair comment, malice, and damages, as the previous judge had been dismissive of the claims.

The court directed that the appellant's draft order be issued, remitting these issues for a full retrial without factual constraints.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support and the respondent father sought interim access to their child.

The parties, both medical doctors, had a brief relationship resulting in an unplanned pregnancy.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $150,000 for interim child support purposes, dismissing the applicant's request for interim disbursements and birth expenses without prejudice.

The court also granted the respondent interim access, emphasizing the child's right to a relationship with the father.

The applicant, a tobacco manufacturer, challenged the Minister of Finance's demand for security under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The applicant argued that because its products were sold exclusively to on-reserve First Nations retailers and for export, they were not subject to Ontario tax, and thus no security could be demanded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the plain language of s. 12(2)(f.1) of the Act requires the Minister to demand security for unmarked fine cut tobacco as if it were destined for taxable sale, to protect against the risk of product diversion.

The court also found the Minister's decision to reduce the required security amount was reasonable.

The appellants, heating and air conditioning businesses, sued the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for defamation after the BBB assigned them a 'D-' rating on its website.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the rating was not defamatory and was protected by fair comment and qualified privilege.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in law by failing to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of the rating, which was clearly defamatory.

The court also found that the BBB did not enjoy qualified privilege for general ratings published to the public.

The appeal was allowed, the trial judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial on the issues of fair comment, malice, and damages.

Two teachers appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Committee had found them guilty for failing to 'immediately' notify the parents of a 16-year-old student who reported being sexually assaulted by other students during a school trip to Boston.

The Divisional Court quashed the Committee's decision, finding it unreasonable.

The Court held that the Committee erred by failing to identify any professional standard, misapprehending the law on standard of care and in loco parentis, improperly taking judicial notice of a 'notorious' standard, ignoring the student's rights, and failing to consider the teachers' good faith exercise of professional judgment in a complex situation.

The plaintiff appealed an order removing its law firm as solicitors of record due to a conflict of interest.

The firm had previously provided employment advice to a former employee of the defendants, who was originally named as a defendant in the action but later discontinued.

The motions judge found a risk that confidential information provided by the former employee could be misused.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that because the former client had settled his issues and dropped his objection to the firm acting, there was no longer a basis to remove the firm to protect his confidential information.

A dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal on the basis of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding they breached a home renovation contract with the respondent contractor.

The dispute arose when the appellants refused to pay a full $20,000 progress invoice, citing concerns over incomplete work and the statutory 10% holdback requirement under the Construction Lien Act.

The contractor subsequently stopped work, registered a lien, and terminated the contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in concluding the appellants had run out of money and acted unreasonably.

The Court held that the contractor breached the contract by terminating it precipitously, and ordered a new trial on damages.

The Divisional Court issued supplementary reasons to clarify its earlier decision partially allowing the appellant's appeal from an Ontario Securities Commission decision.

The original appellate decision set aside specific ten-year bans and an administrative penalty, remitting them for a fresh determination.

Upon request for clarification, the Court agreed with the parties that the remedy should apply to all ten-year bans imposed on the appellant.

The earlier decision was amended to set aside all such bans and remit them to the Commission.

The plaintiff leasing company sought to enforce a personal guarantee and collateral mortgage granted by family members of the principals of a restaurant business in support of an equipment lease.

The defendants argued that their consent to the guarantee and mortgage was obtained through undue influence and without independent legal advice.

The court examined the principles governing undue influence in guarantee transactions, including the requirement that lenders be alert to manifestly disadvantageous transactions involving close relationships.

Given the vulnerable position of the sureties, the absence of meaningful independent legal advice, and circumstances placing the lender on notice of potential undue influence, the court found the guarantees and mortgage unenforceable.

The claims against the two sureties were therefore dismissed.

The appellant lawyer appealed findings of professional misconduct and a six-month suspension imposed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The misconduct arose from his representation of a severely injured client and the client's spouse amidst family conflicts over care and property.

The lawyer was found to have acted in a conflict of interest, breached court orders, commissioned a misleading affidavit, and delayed a settlement to prevent a Law Society complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Law Society Appeal Panel's decision reasonable and the penalty well within the appropriate range for the serious departure from professional standards.

The applicant, an Advanced Care Paramedic, sought judicial review of a medical director's decision to decertify him following an investigation into a call where a patient later died.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the medical director did not follow the advisory recommendations of the Paramedic Practice Review Committee and acted as investigator, prosecutor, and decision-maker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was provided with adequate notice, disclosure, opportunities to respond, and reasons, and that the process did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from alleged transfers of corporate funds intended to defeat enforcement of a foreign judgment against a related company.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to transfer and dissipate assets through affiliated corporations to hinder creditors.

The court found that the evidentiary record raised serious credibility concerns and that the moving defendants’ evidence was internally inconsistent regarding their knowledge of the transactions.

The court concluded that the record suggested the defendants may have benefited from the transfers and that key factual issues, including knowledge and participation in the alleged scheme, required assessment at trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the claims were allowed to proceed to trial.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Surveyor General of Ontario confirming the location of a road allowance under the Surveys Act.

The dispute arose because the confirmed location placed the road allowance on the portion of the appellants' property bordering water, thereby removing their riparian status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Surveyor General had jurisdiction, the fact-finding hearing process was procedurally fair, and her substantive conclusions regarding historical survey evidence and natural boundaries were reasonable and entitled to deference.