Robbie D. Gordon

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The appellant's license to practice law was revoked following findings of professional misconduct.

She appealed to the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, but failed to perfect her appeal for 11 months.

A single adjudicator of the Appeal Division dismissed the appeal for delay without a formal motion from the Law Society.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal without a motion and that a five-person panel was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's rules permit it to control its own process, initiate procedural steps, and dismiss an unperfected appeal via a single adjudicator's procedural order.

The defendant, Breakaway Painting, brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' law firm, McCague Borlack, because a lawyer who previously worked at the firm defending Breakaway had joined McCague Borlack.

The transferring lawyer had been a partner at the previous firm but worked from home and had no involvement in Breakaway's defence.

The court applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin and found that the transferring lawyer rebutted the presumption of having received confidential information.

As the lawyer possessed no actual or imputed confidential information, the new firm was not disqualified.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a discipline panel's decision finding they engaged in professional misconduct by devising and sending three falsified emails to discredit former employees.

The appellants admitted to sending one email but claimed the other two were sent by a hacker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the panel correctly applied the burden of proof, reasonably rejected the hacking theory, properly qualified the respondent's digital forensics expert, and appropriately drew an adverse inference against the appellants for failing to produce key evidence.

The court also upheld the panel's penalty and costs awards, noting the sanctions were measured given the fundamental dishonesty involved.

The court considered whether the defences of anticipation and obviousness to a patent infringement claim should be struck as an abuse of process, given a prior Patent Re-Examination Board decision.

The court held that the issues before the Board (patentability) and the court (validity) are distinct, and that the Patent Act reserves validity determinations for the courts.

The motion to strike was dismissed, allowing the defences to proceed.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the insurer's denial of medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding he did not suffer from chronic pain, misapplied the AMA Guides, misapplied the pre-existing condition exception under s. 18(2) of the SABS, and breached procedural fairness by disregarding illegible clinical notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were reasonable, it was entitled to weigh the expert medical evidence, and there was no breach of procedural fairness in a written hearing where the applicant provided illegible records.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction based on an N12 notice for landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board erred by allowing the application to proceed after the landlord who served the notice died, by amending the application to name the landlord's estate, and by proceeding despite the landlord's failure to disclose a previous N12 notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the landlord's death did not invalidate the good faith intention present when the notice was served, the estate was properly named, and the Board had discretion to amend the application to include the previously undisclosed notice without prejudicing the tenant.

The court considered whether the plaintiff’s construction lien, not set down for trial within two years as required by the Construction Lien Act, could be enforced in another lien action relating to a different portion of the same wind energy project.

The court held that because the plaintiff’s lien and the other lien (Corbiere) were registered against different lands, they did not relate to the same “premises” under the Act.

As a result, the plaintiff’s lien expired and was ordered discharged.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a Specified Continuing Education Program and be cautioned after he erroneously extracted a healthy adult tooth from a minor patient instead of a supernumerary tooth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision to uphold the ICRC's findings—including that the applicant should have taken additional steps to verify the correct tooth and that expert evidence was not required to interpret intraoperative x-rays—was reasonable and procedurally fair.

Matachewan First Nation (MFN) sought an order for eviction and possession of a house on its reserve occupied by Shannon Alberta, alleging unpaid rent and unauthorized use.

Ms. Alberta contended she owned the home or that rent was offset by repair costs, and that MFN breached a fiduciary duty.

She also sought a stay pending a federal investigation or judicial review.

The court found Ms. Alberta was a tenant, not an owner, and was in significant rent arrears without sufficient evidence of offset repairs.

It held that MFN's fiduciary duty as a Band did not extend to the contractual landlord-tenant relationship.

The requests for a stay were denied due to lack of specificity regarding the investigation and the expiry of the judicial review period.

The court granted MFN an order for possession, requiring Ms. Alberta to vacate by August 31, 2024.

This application involved a commercial landlord-tenant dispute following the termination of multiple leases.

The tenant claimed unlawful re-entry, unlawful retention of chattels, overpayment of hydro, business loss due to plumbing issues, defamation, and emotional distress.

The landlord counterclaimed for rent arrears, damages for non-repair, and loss of future rent.

The court found the landlord's re-entry lawful due to rent arrears and tenant repudiation.

However, the landlord's retention of the tenant's chattels was deemed unlawful, awarding the tenant $20,000.

The tenant was also awarded $1,161.23 for overpaid hydro.

The landlord was awarded $19,760 for rent arrears and $35,590 for damages due to the units' disrepair.

Other claims by both parties were dismissed.

Ultimately, the landlord was awarded a net judgment of $34,188.77.

Following an appeal that was allowed in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The appellant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $59,600, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $40,000 all inclusive.

The appellant, a mining services corporation, appealed reassessments disallowing its claim for the Ontario Manufacturing and Processing Profits (MPP) tax credit for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years.

The central issue was whether the appellant had "mining profits" as defined by the Corporations Tax Act, specifically whether its income was from a mineral resource "operated by it" or from "processing of ore." The court applied a textual, contextual, and purposive analysis to the terms "operated" and "processing." It found that the appellant, as a contractor providing mine infrastructure services, did not "operate" the mineral resources (which were controlled by Vale) nor did its income derive from "processing" ore, as its work was related to the production of ore rather than its transformation.

Consequently, the appellant did not qualify for the tax credit, and its appeal was dismissed.

The applicant anesthesiologist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) that effectively suspended his practice by requiring constant clinical supervision.

The order followed incidents involving patient harm, including a death, and allegations of falsified medical records and inattention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision reasonable as there was 'some evidence' of probable harm to patients and the committee adequately justified why less restrictive measures were insufficient.

The defendants, P. James Wallbridge and Wallbridge, Wallbridge, sought to add the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) as a party defendant to allow for apportionment of liability in a negligence claim related to the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to ensure a complete documentary record was before the IAP adjudicator.

The defendants argued adding the AGC was necessary for procedural fairness and effective apportionment, especially given the Crown's immunity from non-party discovery.

The court granted the motion to add the AGC but imposed significant limitations on its participation, including no requirement to file pleadings or attend trial (unless summoned), and restricted discovery rights.

This decision concerns a contested passing of estate accounts.

The beneficiaries (respondents) challenged the estate trustee's (applicant's) accounting, alleging unaccounted assets from real estate sales and a life insurance policy, as well as improper payment of legal fees from the estate.

The court found that the estate trustee failed to adequately account for $107,321 in corporate assets and $53,220 in personal assets, and improperly paid $21,074 in legal fees from the estate.

The court ordered the estate trustee to pay $181,615 to the estate by way of damages.

The respondents' claim for a resulting trust on property transferred to the estate trustee prior to the deceased's death was dismissed due to the presumption of advancement between married spouses.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation concerning latent defects (water infiltration and foundation issues) in a property they purchased.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendant's knowledge of the latent defects, which is a prerequisite for vendor liability.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed due to an "entire agreement" clause in the agreement of purchase and sale, which precluded reliance on pre-contractual representations.

Although finding no liability, the court assessed damages, noting the plaintiffs' failure to mitigate significantly increased the remediation costs.