Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party sought an extension of time of approximately 18 months to apply for judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding compensation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the explanation for the delay weak, doubtful apparent grounds for relief given the union's refusal to pursue judicial review, and substantial prejudice to the respondents due to the lengthy delay and the importance of finality in labour relations.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting an ex parte eviction order under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction was ordered because the tenant failed to comply with a prior conditional order requiring rent to be paid in full and on time.

The tenant paid rent one day late and short of the full amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court noted that the tenant failed to utilize the statutory mechanism to move to set aside the ex parte order at the Board, which would have allowed for a broader evidentiary challenge.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision awarding approximately $2.4 million in compensation to a landowner for the expropriation of a vacant lot.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to screen out the expropriation scheme's effect on the property's value under s. 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act, and by improperly assessing the risk of land dedications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Tribunal's application of the Pointe Gourde principle and concluding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding land dedications were entitled to deference.

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 appellant appealed an interlocutory order requiring the production of the deceased's counselling records from 2005 to 2009 in a will challenge alleging undue influence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by applying a low threshold that permitted a fishing expedition for sensitive personal information.

The court also found a palpable and overriding error in relying on the absence of evidence of undue influence in the two years prior to the will's execution to justify broader disclosure.

The order for production was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application to evict the respondent tenants for personal use.

The LTB found that the appellants, who transferred a 1% interest in the property from their wholly-owned corporation to themselves days before serving the eviction notice, acted in bad faith to evade the statutory prohibition against corporate landlords evicting for personal use.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to appeal but dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no error of law in the LTB's determination that the corporation remained the true landlord.

The applicants sought judicial review of an administrative directive redirecting frozen racing funds to the benefit of the Ontario racing industry rather than re-distributing them race by race.

The court held that the applicants had no remaining right or interest to challenge the directive because the earlier forfeiture order had finally disposed of the entire frozen account and any argument that some funds were from non-purse sources should have been raised in the original proceedings.

The court also held that judicial review is discretionary and declined relief because the application was perfected more than six years after commencement, the delay was excessive and inadequately explained, and prejudice was presumed.

The application was dismissed with agreed costs.

The appellants, two related home builders, appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision upholding Tarion Warranty Corporation's refusal and revocation of their applications for enrollment in the new home warranty plan.

The LAT found that the builders had a history of poor workmanship, warranty breaches, and failure to indemnify Tarion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT correctly interpreted 'conduct' under s. 10.3(4) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to include construction and warranty service competence.

The Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the LAT's factual findings and concluded the LAT proceedings were procedurally fair.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants sought to overturn Tribunal decisions refusing production of documents for abuse of process stay motions and denying a stay of securities enforcement proceedings arising from unlawful disclosure of compelled examination evidence in related receivership proceedings.

Applying appellate standards of review and the abuse of process framework, the court held that the Tribunal did not err in requiring a threshold showing for disclosure, in refusing to adopt the criminal-law summary dismissal threshold from Haevischer, or in concluding there was no tenable abuse of process case warranting disclosure.

The court further held that the unlawful disclosure, while serious, did not establish prejudice to trial fairness or to the integrity of the justice system that would be manifested, perpetuated, or aggravated by continuing the enforcement hearing, and that the grave public interest in adjudicating the securities fraud allegations strongly weighed against a stay.

One sanction issue succeeded only to correct the joint and several disgorgement amount from $2 million to $1.965 million.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated September 23, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the leave motion in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $10,000, all-inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of a Superior Court judge to the Divisional Court.

The motion was determined in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and made no costs order.

On a motion in a judicial review of an access-to-information order, the moving party sought a sealing order over records that remained exempt from disclosure and over unredacted versions of emails containing exempt personal information.

Applying the open-court sealing-order framework, the court held that disclosure would create a serious risk to the important public interest in a fair adjudication of the judicial review because public disclosure would predetermine the merits and render the proceeding moot.

The court found the proposed order narrowly tailored, with redacted versions of the relevant emails to remain in the public record.

The sealing order was granted and no costs were ordered.

The appellant real estate agent appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for $14,000 in commission from the respondent buyers.

The trial judge found the parties had mutually agreed to terminate their Buyer Representation Agreement during a phone call.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the phone call.

The court also denied the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence, as the phone records were available at trial, and rejected the argument that the governing legislation required the termination to be in writing.

Two naturopaths appealed the Discipline Committee's findings of professional misconduct, penalty, and costs orders against them.

The allegations included offering treatment outside the scope of practice, advertising cancer treatments, and failing to cooperate with investigators.

The appellants raised numerous procedural and Charter arguments, including unreasonable search and seizure, delay, vague allegations, and reasonable apprehension of bias due to similarities in the two separate panel decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law, and held that the similarities in the decisions did not rebut the presumption of judicial integrity given the extensive overlap in the cases.

The appellant, a teacher, was found to have committed professional misconduct and sexual abuse by sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

Under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, this finding resulted in the mandatory revocation of his teaching certificate.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the mandatory revocation provisions unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that the Discipline Panel erred in its evidentiary rulings and by failing to conduct a Doré analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Panel's finding that the infringement of the appellant's freedom of expression was justified under s. 1 of the Charter to protect vulnerable students from sexual abuse.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The applicant sought judicial review and a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General of Ontario to challenge court orders made in a separate mortgage dispute.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the application was an impermissible collateral attack on prior court decisions that should have been challenged through the available appeal routes, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its employees were provincially regulated for labour relations purposes.

The applicant, a track welding company performing work primarily for interprovincial railways, argued its operations fell under derivative federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board correctly applied the derivative jurisdiction test.

The court found the applicant's work involved maintenance of railway infrastructure rather than the operation of the railways themselves, and thus did not meet the exceptional threshold for federal jurisdiction.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review regarding the revocation of her mother's short-term rental licence.

The mother was deceased, and the moving party relied on a power of attorney and a will to proceed.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to consider dismissing the proceeding.

The court found that the moving party lacked standing, a deceased person cannot hold a non-transferable licence, and the relief sought was unavailable.

The proceeding was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 in damages and $15,680.62 in costs arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The appellant argued the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction, erred in assessing damages, breached procedural fairness, and erred in calculating pre-judgment interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds except for pre-judgment interest, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing damages for unlawful termination, loss of quiet enjoyment, and punitive damages.

The start date for pre-judgment interest was amended to July 31, 2017.