Who is Matthew J. Sutton?

Matthew J. Sutton is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2017 to 2025.

What courts has Matthew J. Sutton appeared in?

Matthew J. Sutton has appeared in Divisional Court, Superior Court of Justice, with most appearances at the Divisional Court.

How many cases has Matthew J. Sutton handled?

Matthew J. Sutton has 3 cases on record from 2017 to 2025.

What judges has Matthew J. Sutton appeared before?

Matthew J. Sutton has most frequently appeared before Justice Harriet E. Sachs, Justice Lou Ann M. Pope, Justice Mario D. Faieta.

Matthew J. Sutton

3 total

ODCJan 30, 2025

Judicial review of appraisal award dismissed; umpire had jurisdiction to determine repair versus replacement.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding a fire loss at the respondent's property.

The dispute centered on whether an indoor pool could be repaired or required replacement.

The umpire determined repair was not a viable option and awarded replacement cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire did not exceed his jurisdiction, as determining the amount of loss includes deciding between repair and replacement.

The court also rejected allegations of bias and procedural fairness, emphasizing the umpire's broad discretion to control the appraisal process.

TD Insurance Company v. Skrinjar, 2025 ONSC 266

Respondent Counsel

ODCApr 25, 2024

Judicial review dismissed; WSIAT reasonably found worker on break with work phone was in course of employment.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal decision barring their civil action for a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was struck by a dump truck driven by a co-worker while walking back from a personal bank errand during his workday.

The Tribunal found the applicant was in the course of employment because he was required to carry and answer a work-issued cell phone during his break, thereby retaining employer control.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its policies and the resulting decision were reasonable and owed deference.

Colella v. Ng, 2024 ONSC 2365

Applicant Counsel

SCJJul 26, 2017

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend a defence neurological examination to ensure trial fairness.

The defendants, Raphael David Junior Hassan and Carol Precious Hassan, brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Nicola Federico, to attend a further defence neurological examination and to vary a prior court order regarding timelines for defence medical assessments.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants had not met the test for a further assessment and were not compliant with the existing timeline.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding a neurological assessment necessary for trial fairness given the plaintiff's ongoing neurological complaints and expert reports.

The court also extended the timeline for the assessment and the service of the responding neurological report, noting the plaintiffs' inconsistent stance on the original deadline.