David L. Corbett

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment allowing part of the respondent subcontractor's construction lien claim.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in denying a credit for PST, in his treatment of extras and back charges, and in treating the owner's legal costs as a costs issue rather than a charge back under the subcontract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and agreeing that equitable estoppel applied to the PST issue and that the legal costs were properly treated as a costs matter.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding support, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to decide whether to impute income to the respondent for 2012.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the trial judge effectively made an interlocutory order by leaving the issue subject to review upon additional disclosure.

The appeal was allowed and the issue of imputation of income and support from 2012 onwards was remitted back to the trial judge for a final determination.

The applicant tenant sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board in a proceeding that the landlord subsequently abandoned.

The landlord had commenced a second proceeding, resulting in a final order terminating the tenancy and fixing arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding it moot because the interim order ceased to have effect when the first proceeding was abandoned.

The court declined to exercise its residual discretion to hear the moot case, noting that due process issues before the Board can be reviewed in cases that are not moot.

The applicants, who recently took over the operation of a convenience store, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision applying a tobacco sales prohibition order to them.

The prohibition was issued under section 16 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act because employees of the prior, unrelated operator had been twice convicted of selling tobacco to minors.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that on a purposive interpretation of the Act, the prohibition can only be applied to a person who has committed at least one tobacco sales offence.

Since the applicants had never been convicted of such an offence, the Minister lacked jurisdiction to apply the prohibition to them.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal that refused or revoked their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness by the Vice-Chair's conduct of the hearing.

The respondent conceded that the unrepresented appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal for the unrepresented appellant and remitted his matter for a rehearing.

However, the court dismissed the appeal for the represented appellants, finding that while the hearing was conducted perfunctorily, they were not denied basic procedural rights such as cross-examination.

The defendants moved to dismiss a multi-plaintiff action brought by Saab dealers in five provinces, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was not the convenient forum.

The court held that the Canadian distributor carried on business in Ontario and throughout the provinces where it established dealers, and that the claims arose from the same series of transactions and common issues concerning the failure of a national dealer network.

Applying the Van Breda connecting factors, the court found jurisdiction simpliciter in Ontario for all claims, upheld joinder of all plaintiffs and defendants, and concluded Ontario was the most convenient Canadian forum.

The motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs because the motion was found patently meritless and pursued in an abusive, wasteful manner.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision that permitted the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include extra-contractual misrepresentation claims despite an entire agreement clause, and refused the defendants' amendments pleading similar fact evidence of the plaintiffs' aggressive litigation history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly struck the similar fact pleadings as they did not constitute an affirmative defence of abuse of process.

The court also upheld the Master's decision to allow the plaintiffs' extra-contractual claims to proceed through the pleadings stage, noting that under the Tercon principle, such claims are not necessarily doomed to failure.

The Master's deferral of discovery planning was upheld as a reasonable exercise of discretion.

In this costs endorsement arising from an estate dispute, the court determined the appropriate scale and amount of costs payable to the successful plaintiffs.

The court found there were no pertinent offers to settle and held that adverse credibility findings against the defendant did not amount to litigation misconduct warranting a costs sanction.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale in the agreed amount of $35,000, payable within thirty days.

The plaintiffs challenged a late-life will and inter vivos transfers made by a deceased testator suffering from Parkinson’s Disease and Lewy Body Dementia, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the surviving spouse.

After reviewing extensive medical records, expert psychiatric evidence, solicitor evidence, and family evidence, the court found the testator lacked testamentary capacity when the 2007 will was executed and that the will and capital transfers were products of undue influence.

The court held that suspicious circumstances were significant, including marked departures from earlier estate plans, failure to obtain a capacity assessment, and inadequate evidence supporting the asserted financial rationale for disinheriting the sons in substance.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs, the third will and impugned transfers were set aside, and the defendant was ordered to return transferred assets to the estate.

The applicant mother sought an urgent stay of an interim access order made by the trial judge.

The trial judge, who had reserved judgment after a 20-day trial, unilaterally issued an order granting the respondent father unsupervised access over the Christmas holidays without notice, evidence, or a hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the trial judge's order, while likely motivated by the lengthy delay in releasing the trial decision, constituted a profound violation of natural justice and was not in the best interests of the children.

The appellant employee was laid off after seven years of employment and subsequently paid his minimum entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.

He sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the layoff was a constructive dismissal and that the employer's breach, along with its failed after-the-fact allegation of just cause, precluded it from relying on the employment contract's termination clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the constructive dismissal nor the failed just cause defence prevented the employer from invoking the contractual provision limiting severance to the statutory minimums.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal, the parties sought directions regarding costs of prior appearances and the plaintiff's request for free transcripts for a motion for leave to appeal.

The court set a timetable for the defendant to make submissions on costs for prior appearances, noting the plaintiff's limited means.

The court denied the plaintiff's request for free transcripts at public expense, finding that transcripts of oral argument are not necessary for a motion for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's decision dismissing her motion to amend her statement of claim to add new claims and defendants in a wrongful dismissal action.

She argued that the limitation period for the new claims was suspended due to her mental illness constituting a legal disability.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that while the plaintiff suffered from a severe mental illness, it did not render her legally disabled or unable to appreciate her cause of action.

The court also dismissed motions to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the Master's rulings on undertakings and refusals.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying benefits for a shoulder injury.

The applicant had previously received benefits for an elbow injury caused by repetitive stress at work.

The Tribunal concluded that the shoulder injury arose after the elbow injury and was not caused by it, nor by a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's assessment of the medical evidence and application of the statutory presumption of causation.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim abandoned their motion for leave to appeal, which was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff's separate motion for leave to appeal was delayed because the required issued and entered orders had not been filed.

The court noted the substantial costs already incurred by the parties and suggested that case management by a single judge of the Divisional Court might be appropriate given the likelihood of multiple future appearances.

Costs for the appearance were left to the discretion of the judge hearing the remaining motion.

The appellant, who received a structured settlement from a 1980 motor vehicle accident, appealed a decision reducing his Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Director determined that only the $60,000 principal used to purchase his lifetime annuity was exempt as damages for pain and suffering under O. Reg. 222/98, while the ongoing payments exceeding that amount constituted non-exempt interest income.

The Social Benefits Tribunal upheld this decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the exemption is limited to the original lump sum and does not extend to the interest generated by the annuity.

The appellant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, appealed a trial decision awarding her $350,000 in dependant's relief from the deceased's estate.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made several errors in principle, including misapplying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, improperly relying on the deceased's unimplemented intentions, and incorrectly calculating the net estate assets.

The Court set aside the trial judgment, conducted its own analysis of the legal and moral claims of the dependants, and increased the appellant's award to $750,000, plus costs, to adequately provide for her proper support while balancing the competing claims of the deceased's separated wife and adult daughters.

The defendant payment processor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from a disputed credit card transaction.

The court held that the processor acted in accordance with its contractual obligations with merchants and credit card companies and had no contract or duty of care toward the plaintiff in the circumstances.

The merchant elected to pursue collection directly from the plaintiff rather than continue the chargeback process.

The court further found the claim was commenced well outside the applicable two‑year limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the processor with costs.

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of a leisure sailboat under the Civil Remedies Act on the basis that it had been operated while the owner was impaired by alcohol or drugs.

The owner disputed that he had been operating the vessel and was self‑represented, lacked legal training, and did not speak English.

The court identified a significant legal issue as to whether the Civil Remedies Act could extend to forfeiture of property in circumstances where the property was not alleged to be proceeds or an instrument of organized criminal activity.

Given the broader implications for forfeiture practices and the imbalance in legal resources, the court appointed amicus curiae to assist on the legal issues.

The application was scheduled to return for argument after arrangements for the amicus appointment were finalized.

The union brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an application challenging internal disciplinary findings against a union member who had been fined for performing union work for a non‑union contractor.

The applicant alleged breaches of the union constitution, denial of procedural fairness, tribunal bias, transcript irregularities, and bad faith.

The court held that internal union tribunals are domestic tribunals whose decisions are reviewable only for breaches of the constitution, bad faith, or procedural unfairness.

After reviewing the record, the court found the disciplinary process complied with the constitution and afforded the member adequate procedural protections, including notice, opportunity to present evidence, and multiple internal appeals.

No breach of natural justice or bad faith was established and the court declined to interfere with the union’s internal disciplinary decision.