Wendy M. Matheson

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy on the basis of the landlord's good faith requirement for his son.

The notice of appeal was approximately three weeks late.

The court applied the test for an extension of time, noting the short delay, lack of actual prejudice to the landlord, and the principle that a party should not be deprived of the right to appeal where there is no real prejudice, even if merits are difficult to see.

The court granted the extension of time on terms, including an expedited appeal and a case conference to address rent and arrears.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal three orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000 per court file.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 6, 2023.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Gibson J. dated September 26, 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 the order of the lower court judge.

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

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 29, 2023.

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

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her statutory accident benefits.

Following the LAT decision, the moving party attempted to seek a reconsideration but was denied an extension of time to do so, and subsequently denied a reconsideration of that denial.

The court clarified that only the original merits decision was a final order giving rise to a right of appeal to the Divisional Court.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, provided an adequate explanation for the delay, and that the respondent suffered no real prejudice.

The court granted the extension of time to appeal the merits decision on specific terms.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal multiple orders and requested extensions of time.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of his judicial review and appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to February 28, 2024, on peremptory terms.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs thrown away and to pay $5,000 into court pending further order.

Failure to make these payments would allow the respondent to move to quash the proceedings.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant missed the appeal deadline by approximately two weeks due to confusion over hearing dates.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short and the tenant had an intention to appeal.

However, the court imposed terms requiring the tenant to pay $1,000 per month towards substantial rental arrears pending the appeal.

The court declined to stay the eviction, as it had already been enforced, and declined to prevent the landlord from re-renting the premises.

The appellant dentist appealed a discipline committee decision finding he engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and committed professional misconduct by co-signing a mortgage with another patient.

The committee revoked his certificate of registration and ordered him to pay costs and therapy expenses.

On appeal, the appellant argued the patient was his spouse under the statutory exception, relying on an alleged foreign divorce and religious marriage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the committee's finding that the sexual relationship commenced before the alleged marriage, rendering the spousal exception inapplicable.

The mandatory penalty of revocation and the costs awards were also upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed one of her two allegations of breach of a settlement agreement for being untimely.

The HRTO found that the two alleged breaches did not constitute a 'series of contraventions' under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, meaning the first breach was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with its established jurisprudence.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias, finding no evidentiary basis for them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging age discrimination in credit card travel insurance.

The HRTO had dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code applied.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator made a fundamental error by placing the onus on the applicant to prove that s. 22 did not apply, rather than on the respondents seeking to benefit from the exception.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Ministries disqualifying its bid for a government debt collection contract.

The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation stage for failing to demonstrate it was currently registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procurement dispute was commercial in nature and not subject to judicial review.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Ministries' decision to disqualify the bid based on an expired registration certificate was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Discipline and Fitness to Practise Committees to amend their rule regarding third-party record production to align with R. v. Mills.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing as he was not currently subject to any proceedings where the rule would apply.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if standing were established, the Committees' decision to update the rule was reasonable and within their statutory authority.

The appellant pharmacist appealed the decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists finding professional misconduct, imposing a penalty, and awarding costs of $190,000.

The misconduct involved billing for medications not prescribed or received, and falsifying records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Committee's decisions regarding misconduct, penalty, or costs.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

After waiting for half an hour, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The tenant sought to appeal an interim review order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) which had granted the landlord's request to review a previous decision dismissing an application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the LTB's review decision was an interlocutory order, from which there is no right of appeal.

The tenant failed to respond to the notice within the extended 30-day period.

The court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1 for lack of jurisdiction, noting the tenant could appeal once a final decision is made by the LTB.