Matthew Cornett

The self-represented plaintiff sought to contest the garnishment of his bank account for costs awarded in previous proceedings, requesting an urgent motion date.

The court found the plaintiff's arguments regarding the validity of the cost awards amounted to an improper collateral attack and that any stay pending his leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada must be sought in that court.

The court rejected technical arguments regarding the notice of garnishment and denied the request to set a motion date.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendant due to the plaintiff's history of abusive litigation tactics.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Toronto Licensing Tribunal decisions that first suspended and later revoked his vehicle-for-hire licence due to uncivil behaviour toward municipal staff.

The applicant argued the tribunal ignored evidence of provocation and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably weighed the evidence, considered the context, and appropriately prioritized the public interest after the applicant continued his behaviour despite completing anger management counselling.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the applicant's 1,127-page application record in a judicial review of a zoning bylaw amendment for supportive housing.

The applicant sought to introduce affidavit evidence regarding other City projects to demonstrate a pattern of closed-mindedness and lack of consultation.

The court partially granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, argumentative, inflammatory, or related to post-decision events, while permitting some evidence regarding the applicant's claims of bias and an improperly restricted record to remain for the panel's consideration.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the City of Toronto from raising the flag of the State of Palestine at City Hall.

The applicants argued the approval was ultra vires, breached the City's Flag Policy, and violated the duty of neutrality.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, as the City's decision was reasonable and within its authority.

The court also found the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a motion for costs brought by the Toronto Police Service Board following the abandonment of an appeal by Gary Curtis and Tanya Rebello.

The court found that the Board was entitled to costs, as its responding materials were served before the Notice of Abandonment was filed.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments regarding entitlement and quantum of costs, and awarded the Board $19,365.37, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision regarding a developer's site plan application.

The Tribunal had found the application complete despite the developer failing to attend a mandatory pre-application consultation.

The court granted the extension, finding the moving party's delay was short and adequately explained by its initial attempt to seek leave to appeal, and that the proposed application raised apparent grounds for relief that should be determined by a panel.

The Applicant sought to quash a City of Toronto by-law (By-law 1515-2019, section 1(A)) that limited the issuance of new payday loan establishment licenses to renewals only, arguing it was ultra vires the City of Toronto Act, 2006, discriminatory, and in conflict with federal and provincial legislation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law to be a valid exercise of the City's broad authority for consumer protection, not discriminatory in the municipal law sense, and not in conflict with higher legislation, as it did not prohibit all payday loan operations nor frustrate the purpose of the relevant Acts.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to deny them the right to rent space for a Hallowe'en-themed event due to alleged harassment of staff.

The Board raised a preliminary issue that the decision was a private contractual matter and not subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the decision to not enter into a short-term rental agreement was an exercise of private law discretion, not a statutory power of decision or a matter of sufficient public character.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches against the Crown and the Toronto Police Services Board, arising from a 2013 police shooting during the execution of a search warrant and his subsequent criminal prosecution, which ended in acquittals in 2014.

The plaintiff sought leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to continue his claim against the Crown.

The Board moved for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period, and the Crown moved to strike the Charter claims.

The court denied leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success for the malicious prosecution claim.

The court granted summary judgment to the Board, as the action was commenced more than six years after the acquittals and the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability.

The Charter claims against the Crown were also struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The appellants, who own taxicab licences in Toronto, sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto for economic losses allegedly caused by the City's failure to enforce its by-laws against Uber and other private transportation companies.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the City did not owe the appellants a private law duty of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the City's regulatory role and its interactions with the appellants did not create a relationship of proximity, and that policy reasons regarding indeterminate liability negated any prima facie duty of care.

The defendant Toronto Police Services Board brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and (b).

The plaintiff claimed damages in negligence, alleging a police officer failed or refused to lay charges after investigating his complaint of assault.

The court held that police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime regarding the investigation or prosecution of alleged crimes, as this duty is owed to the public as a whole.

Finding it plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable chance of success, the court struck the claim without leave to amend.

The applicants, taxicab owners, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to cancel their Standard Taxicab Licences (STLs) unless they converted them to Toronto Taxicab Licences (TTLs) and made their vehicles wheelchair accessible.

The applicants had acquired their STLs under an interim court order during a challenge to a 2014 municipal by-law.

The Divisional Court found that the 2015 court decision resolving the by-law challenge upheld the mandatory conversion requirement upon sale.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments based on a subsequent 2016 by-law, estoppel, and procedural fairness, concluding that the City had provided adequate reasons and the applicants were bound by the conditions they accepted when purchasing their licences.

The application was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.

The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.

The applicants, the City of Toronto and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim injunction to stop an arbitration between the respondents, Resource Productivity & Recovery Authority and Stewardship Ontario.

The applicants argued that the arbitration was not the proper forum to challenge a funding obligation decision and sought to have the matter determined by judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the arbitration to proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiffs, taxicab plate owners, brought a proposed $1.7 billion class action against the City of Toronto, alleging negligence in the enforcement of its taxicab bylaws against Uber and in the enactment of a new bylaw permitting private transportation companies.

The plaintiffs moved for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the City's enactment of the bylaw was a legislative function immune from private damage suits, and its enforcement of the bylaws was a public duty that did not create a private law duty of care to the taxicab plate owners for pure economic losses.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from a Master's decision, the successful police respondents sought costs.

The Crown did not seek costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1), noting the appellants had claimed $40 million in damages and made serious allegations against the police in a factually complex action.

The court awarded the police respondents $4,000 in costs, representing a reasonable reduction from their partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice in which the trial judge determined that the site occupied by the appellant belonged to the City of Toronto and that the appellant was not authorized to place his property there.

The appellant raised substantially the same arguments on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's determination regarding ownership of the site was a question of fact and that no palpable and overriding error had been committed.

The conclusion that the City had the authority to remove and destroy the appellant's property was well-founded.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellants sued the police and the Crown for negligence and other torts related to a criminal investigation and prosecution.

The action was administratively dismissed for delay by the Registrar.

The appellants unsuccessfully moved before a Master to set aside the dismissal.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's application of the test to set aside an administrative dismissal, noting the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay, were not prompt in moving to set aside the order, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision refusing to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The original action alleged negligence by police and Crown attorneys, and claims of terror, intimidation, assault, and unauthorized searches by police, stemming from a private prosecution that resulted in an acquittal.

The Master's decision was based on the appellants' failure to explain the delay, their lack of promptness in moving to set aside the dismissal, and the presumption of prejudice to the respondents.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's discretionary decision, noting that the appellants' action was also unlikely to succeed due to prosecutorial immunity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.