David L. Corbett

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review case management directions that struck his 267-page appeal factum and required him to obtain trial transcripts for a Small Claims Court appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the case management judge's directions reasonable and necessary given the moving party's flagrant breach of the Rules respecting transcripts and factums.

The court extended the deadline for the moving party to order transcripts but warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his appeal.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that her application for statutory accident benefits was time-barred.

The appellant argued the insurer's notice of refusal did not comply with s. 54 of the SABS because it failed to detail all levels of appeal and misleadingly stated a hard two-year limitation period without explaining discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 54 only requires notice of the right to dispute the refusal at the Tribunal, not subsequent appeal rights.

The Court also found the notice was not misleading, as detailing discoverability principles could detract from the clarity of the warning and confuse claimants.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal a decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant mother appealed an enforcement order that granted the respondent father final decision-making authority over their son's medical care and imposed fines on the mother for missed parenting time.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a substantive remedial order under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to address the child's crisis, it was an error to make the order final rather than temporary pending a motion to change.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to be temporary and capping the accrued fines at $1,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated February 23, 2026.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement, with no costs awarded.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the unreported decision of V. Christie J. dated October 17, 2025.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of three by-law enforcement orders issued by the respondent township regarding a bamboo hedge, stored building materials, and a front fence extension.

The applicant argued the orders were unreasonable and that the enforcement process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the bamboo had grown into a non-compliant fence, the stored bricks and stones were building materials, and the trellis additions extended the fence height beyond permitted limits.

The court found no procedural unfairness or bias, noting that any potential unfairness from the denial of a review hearing was cured by the judicial review proceeding itself.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Judge to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion, noting that under section 17 of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from an Associate Judge's order lies as of right to a Superior Court Judge, not the Divisional Court.

Reduced costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party because they failed to use Rule 2.1 to dispose of the motion summarily.

The applicant sought judicial review of WSIAT decisions that dismissed his appeals regarding the quantification of his benefits for a workplace knee injury.

The applicant raised numerous procedural and substantive objections, including allegations of Charter and human rights violations, bias, and unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's procedures were fair, its jurisdictional findings were correct, and its factual determinations were reasonable given the evidence and the applicant's refusal to participate in an oral hearing.

The appellant dentist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Committee found the appellant had sexual relations with two patients, failed to document informed consent, breached opioid prescribing guidelines, and directed staff to file false insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors in principle.

The court upheld the mandatory revocation of the appellant's license and the Committee's costs award of over $450,000, and awarded $15,000 in costs for the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Akazaki J. dated January 14, 2026.

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

The moving party brought a motion for a stay pending the appeal of a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion 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 without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Corthorn J. dated January 28, 2026.

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

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear their appeal regarding the cancellation of their income support.

The Director had cancelled their benefits and denied an extension of time to request an internal review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's decision to hold an in-writing hearing and concluding that the Tribunal correctly applied binding precedent in determining it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of an extension of time for an internal review.

The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the affidavit evidence would be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record if no transcript was available.

The court suggested that seeking an order for the production of the hearing transcript would be the most efficient way to resolve the evidentiary dispute.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

A case management judge ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and a portion of the arrears to maintain the statutory stay of eviction pending the appeal.

The tenant failed to pay and brought a motion to review the interim payment order under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, along with a motion to stay the interim order pending the review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious issue to be heard and that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the landlord due to the tenant's long-term failure to pay rent.

The Court lifted the stay of the eviction order and directed immediate enforcement, emphasizing that the appeal process cannot be used to obtain rent-free living.

The moving party tenant brought a motion for a stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

During the hearing, the self-represented parties reached a settlement.

The court issued a consent order staying the eviction and the underlying intended application, conditional on the tenant paying ongoing monthly rent and making scheduled payments towards $4,250 in rent arrears.

If the tenant defaults, the landlord may request the stay be lifted; if the arrears are paid in full, the tenant may request the eviction order be quashed on consent.

The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that the affidavit evidence could be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record, as the Tribunal had declined to provide a transcript without a court order.

The court directed the parties on the process for seeking production of the transcript.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of ten Cate J. dated December 31, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.