Wendy M. Matheson

The tenants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that dismissed their motion to void a prior eviction order.

The LTB argued that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory LTB decision.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no statutory provision in the Residential Tenancies Act or the Courts of Justice Act conferring such jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to pursue their remedies at the LTB.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of P. Sutherland J. dated July 20, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an endorsement of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that denied his motion to reinstate previous appeals and set aside a vexatious litigant order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

The Court found that the endorsement was not a final order giving rise to a statutory right of appeal under section 49.38 of the Law Society Act.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the proposed appeal as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) upholding the dismissal of his complaints against seven police officers.

The complaints alleged police misconduct related to investigations of conflicts arising from a family law dispute, including recording an incorrect witness name, failing to meet disclosure obligations, and failing to enforce COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers acted in good faith and within their discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Township of Oro-Medonte and a ratepayers' alliance appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that repealed a zoning by-law amendment aimed at regulating short-term rentals.

The Tribunal had found the by-law created a new land use prohibition that was overbroad and not in the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness, correctly interpreted the existing zoning by-law, and made no error of law in concluding the amendment did not represent good planning.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which required her to complete a remediation program and receive a caution for working for two public health employers concurrently during the same shifts.

The applicant argued she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable and justified based on the record.

The appellant was assaulted by her husband while driving, causing her to lose control of the vehicle and strike her head.

She applied for statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the incident was not an 'accident' because the assault was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the incident in two phases: the assault itself, and the subsequent loss of control of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the issue of whether the injuries from the loss of control constituted an accident was remitted for a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) moved for an order sealing part of the record in an underlying application for judicial review and preventing further dissemination of the documents.

The documents were found by an adjudicator to be covered by solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant and the affiant opposed the motion.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the criteria in Sherman Estate were met and that opening the documents to the public before the proceedings were decided would irreparably compromise the privilege and secrecy.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for an interim stay pending an application for judicial review.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of the motion.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, ordering that the interim interim stay remain in place until the motion is heard, the application is decided, or the parties consent to lift it.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal after the 30-day time period had expired.

After multiple extensions of time were granted to perfect the appeal on the preliminary issue of late filing, the appellant failed to serve and file his materials by the final deadline.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not established that his failure to comply with the court's directions was due to circumstances beyond his control, and that there had been undue delay.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Celexa.

The proposed class action alleged a failure to warn that the drug is or may be a teratogen causing congenital malformations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Class Proceedings Judge's findings that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality due to the hundreds of potential congenital malformations with unique etiologies, and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues would overwhelm any common issues.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $6,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of S.T. Bale J. dated September 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant, Ontario, appealed a case management judge's order that directed multiple motions, including motions to strike, to proceed concurrently with the respondents' motion for leave to pursue a bad faith claim against the Crown.

Ontario argued that section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 imposes an automatic stay on the entire proceeding until leave is granted.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the statutory stay applies to all claims in the proceeding, not just those against the Crown, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot override this statutory mandate.

The appeal was granted, and all motions other than the leave motion were stayed.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against an anaesthesiologist.

The applicant alleged the doctor's inadequate care during her spouse's surgery contributed to his severe dementia and death, and claimed the subsequent investigation was inadequate and medical records were falsified.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding HPARB's conclusions that the investigation was adequate and the decision was reasonable were both reasonable, and finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the respondent.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, no costs were ordered.