Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy so the respondent landlord's daughter could move in.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because her evidence was rushed and the landlord's daughter was permitted to assist the landlord at the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB member reasonably controlled the process and established a fair procedure for the daughter's participation.

The court also noted that challenges to factual findings are not permitted on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order committing a youth to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The trial judge found that the youth had attempted to cause serious bodily harm within the preceding 45 days based on a threat to jump off a bridge, ingestion of an unidentified quantity of methamphetamine, and an involuntary hospital admission for suicidal ideation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law because the incidents amounted to mere threats or lacked evidence of actual harm or risk of serious bodily harm.

The secure treatment order was set aside.

The applicant sought to bring an application for judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision three years and eight months after it was released.

The Tribunal had previously ruled that the applicant's civil action against his employer was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court applied the prior regime for judicial review delay, finding the applicant's explanations for the delay insufficient and concluding that prejudice to the respondents was presumed.

The motion to proceed with the application was dismissed for delay.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the moving party was ordered to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to each of the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 27, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party was not called upon to file materials, no costs were ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessment of a Bell Canada telecommunications switching station in downtown Toronto.

The Board had reduced the property's current value by approximately 45 percent through an equity adjustment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, relying on a comparison with another Bell Canada switching station.

MPAC argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the provision and failed to apply the correct test for equity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law in the Board's factual determination of 'similar lands in the vicinity' or its methodology for calculating the equity adjustment.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following a house fire.

They alleged procedural fairness violations, bias, and unreasonableness, citing the aggressive conduct of the insurer's appraiser and the umpire's independent site visit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite the insurer's appraiser's poor behavior, the applicants had a full opportunity to present their case.

The court held the umpire's process was fair, unbiased, and the resulting valuation was reasonable and intelligible.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Panel that upheld the revocation of his licence to practise law for professional misconduct, including mortgage fraud and misappropriation of client funds.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Division erred in deeming facts and documents admitted after he provided only generic denials and objections to a request to admit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct amounted to a refusal to engage in the admissions process and that the Appeal Panel made no reviewable errors in its comprehensive reasons or its order.

The moving party landlord sought an order lifting the stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenancy was terminated due to substantial non-payment of rent.

The appeal was commenced by an individual who was not named as a tenant in the LTB proceedings.

The purported appellant failed to comply with a previous court direction to make monthly rent payments and payments towards the arrears.

The court granted the motion and lifted the stay, noting that a party cannot benefit from a stay while failing to pay rent and accumulating large arrears.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Boswell J. dated January 24, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 2023 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her discrimination complaint against the respondent college and denying reconsideration.

The complaint arose from a group assignment in a paralegal course where the applicant alleged discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, and creed.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions to be reasonable, noting the applicant failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The court also dismissed allegations of adjudicator bias, concluding that an adverse finding does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving parties, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated March 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

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 applicant sought judicial review of an Animal Care Review Board decision upholding the warrantless seizure of 41 cats from her apartment.

The applicant failed to attend the Board hearing to present her Charter arguments, and the Board proceeded in her absence, finding the warrantless entry justified under s. 29 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to grant a further adjournment was procedurally fair and its conclusion on the warrantless entry was reasonable.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order.

Neither party uploaded materials to CaseLines despite obligations under the Consolidated Practice Direction and reminders from the court office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed, all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of fifteen reconsideration decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing his applications alleging discrimination by various individuals and organizations.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file the judicial review, which the Divisional Court granted due to the HRTO's delay and lack of prejudice.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the HRTO's decisions to deny reconsideration were reasonable and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration requests.