P. Theodore Matlow

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent since the beginning of the lease, accumulating over $25,000 in arrears, and had repeatedly provided dishonoured cheques to delay eviction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the appeal was devoid of merit, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed solely to manipulate the automatic stay provisions and live rent-free.

The court dismissed the appeal, awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlord, and called for legislative amendments to restrict the right of appeal in residential tenancy cases to prevent such abuses.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to amend her statement of claim to add a derivative claim against an insurer on behalf of a corporation.

The respondent sought to recover her investment losses under a fidelity bond issued to the corporation, alleging the corporation's principal committed fraudulent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the principal was the controlling mind of the corporation and could not defraud his own corporation.

As the proposed derivative claim was bound to fail, the respondent was not a proper complainant under the Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiff sued her former spouse alleging that he fraudulently misappropriated life insurance proceeds payable to her following the death of their child in a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant had deposited both insurance cheques into the parties’ joint bank account and used the funds for joint expenses and investments while the plaintiff was hospitalized.

The court found the plaintiff to be an unreliable witness and accepted the defendant’s evidence that the funds were used with the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent.

The court further held that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that a broad mutual release contained in the parties’ separation agreement extinguished any such claims.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of a motion judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the threshold test set out in Rule 62.02(4)(a) or (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also noted that reasons for refusing leave to appeal an interlocutory order generally need not be given.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to transfer an application to the Divisional Court.

The underlying application sought a declaration that the Minimum Maintenance Standards regulation was ultra vires and invalid, arising from a motor vehicle accident tort action against a municipality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under section 8 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the motion judge had the discretion to retain jurisdiction over the application rather than transferring it, and that this discretion was exercised reasonably to facilitate judicial economy.

The plaintiff commenced an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident within the two-year limitation period.

More than six years after the accident, she successfully moved to add family members as plaintiffs to assert derivative claims under the Family Law Act.

The defendant appealed, arguing the derivative claims were statute-barred because they must follow the limitation period of the principal claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that as long as the principal action was commenced in time, each derivative claimant is entitled to have their limitation period determined separately based on the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The successful plaintiff sought costs of the appeal in the amount of $5,428.74.

The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's entitlement to costs but argued they should be fixed at $3,500.

The Divisional Court found the plaintiff's claim substantially justified and awarded costs fixed at $5,400 all-inclusive.

Following the dismissal of an application that was found to be without merit, the applicant and the respondent union both sought costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs, noting the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The respondent union was awarded costs fixed at $12,000, payable by the applicant.

The appellant, a physician licensed in New Brunswick with a 'Defined Licence' subject to ongoing clinical activity in the province, appealed a decision denying him an independent practice certificate in Ontario.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upheld the College's decision, finding that the New Brunswick licence was not 'equivalent' to an Ontario certificate under the interprovincial mobility provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'equivalent' was reasonable given Ontario's standards-based approach compared to New Brunswick's needs-based discretionary licence.

Costs decision arising from an interim motion within an estates-related family dispute involving the care and financial management of an elderly person under disability.

The moving party sought relief against a sibling for alleged misconduct in managing the parent’s affairs and failing to comply with prior court orders.

After numerous appearances and unsuccessful settlement attempts, the court had earlier imposed an interim regime and transferred the matter to the Estates List.

In determining costs, the court found the moving party had acted reasonably in seeking judicial intervention and attempting settlement, while the responding sibling repeatedly consented to settlements and later repudiated them, causing unnecessary expense.

The court awarded partial costs to the moving party against the responding sibling and apportioned costs for the Public Guardian and Trustee between the principal litigants.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order transferring the defamation action from Toronto to Hamilton.

The plaintiff argued that extensive media coverage in Hamilton regarding his previous murder charge and its withdrawal created a reasonable apprehension of bias, preventing a fair jury trial.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by failing to properly address the reasonable apprehension of bias and by expressing inappropriate personal views regarding a perceived duty to the child of a murdered barrister, which amounted to a denial of a fair hearing.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy after they were found ineligible for geared-to-income rent due to alleged misrepresentation of assets.

At the Board hearing, the tenants attempted to raise the issue of harassment by the landlord's property manager, but the Board refused to consider it because it was not raised two weeks prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law because section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Board to permit a tenant to raise any issue that could be the subject of a tenant application.

The Board's order was set aside.

The plaintiff invested funds with a corporate entity, with another corporation acting as escrow trustee.

After losing her investment, she sued the escrow trustee, its principal, and others.

She also sued the insurer that had issued a fidelity bond to the escrow trustee.

The plaintiff successfully moved to add a derivative claim against the insurer on behalf of the escrow trustee under s. 246(1) of the Business Corporations Act.

The escrow trustee and its principal appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the plaintiff was not a proper complainant under s. 245(c).

The court held that the proposed derivative claim fell outside the scope of the fidelity bond because the principal was the controlling mind of the escrow trustee, not an employee, and could not have committed a fraudulent act against his own alter ego.

The parties separated after a 25-year marriage and equalized their assets, including the appellant's pension.

The appellant later retired and brought a motion to reduce his spousal support obligations.

The motions judge reduced the support but included the appellant's full pension income in the calculation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the motions judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to exclude the previously equalized portion of the pension, resulting in inequitable double recovery.

The appeal was allowed and spousal support was reduced based only on the unequalized portion of the pension.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university disciplinary decision that resulted in a formal reprimand for harassment under the Code of Student Conduct.

He argued that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not permitted legal representation at the initial hearing before the Vice-Provost, that the decision was unreasonable, and that it violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was fair given the context and minor sanctions, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply, the decision was reasonable, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal disciplinary process.

The appellants appealed a trial decision in a construction lien action, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to find a verbal contract altering payment terms, and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and the unambiguous written agreement.

The court also rejected the bias allegation, noting it was not raised at trial and had no basis.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The respondent had received disability benefits after an accident but returned to work full-time for over six months before going off work again following an MRI.

The insurer denied the resumption of benefits based on the 'Recurrent Disability' clause in the policy.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the policy language clear and unambiguous, and held that the motion judge erred in law by concluding a trial was necessary to interpret the policy in light of the MRI.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a binding final contract existed between the parties for the creation of visual artwork and that the defendant had repudiated that contract.

The court reviewed extensive conflicting evidence concerning negotiations, correspondence, and the parties’ expectations regarding execution of a formal written agreement contemplated by governing terms of reference.

Although the plaintiff had performed design work and received payment for preparatory efforts, the court found the evidentiary record raised substantial credibility issues and conflicting inferences about whether a final binding contract had been formed.

The court held that these disputes constituted genuine issues requiring a trial and could not safely be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The tenant appealed an eviction order and a subsequent order denying his request for review.

The tenant had arrived 20 minutes late to the eviction hearing due to traffic, and the Board proceeded in his absence.

The Board later denied his request for review, making an adverse credibility finding without conflicting evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by failing to conduct the mandatory review under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and denied the tenant natural justice.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted for a rehearing.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, spousal support, unjust enrichment, and costs.

She argued the trial judge was biased, erred in apportioning child support with the biological father, improperly limited spousal support to 9 years despite her disability, and wrongly dismissed her constructive trust claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, needs and means analysis, or application of the test for unjust enrichment.