Wendy M. Matheson

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.

The appellant/applicant sought to appeal and judicially review interlocutory decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding the striking out and destruction of certain evidence.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory LAT decision.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review regarding the evidentiary rulings due to prematurity, but permitted the judicial review to proceed regarding the orders requiring the destruction of documents.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Mirza J. dated June 2, 2023.

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

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an oppression application involving two closely held companies, one incorporated under the OBCA and the other under the CBCA.

The Divisional Court noted a jurisdictional issue, as appeals under the CBCA lie to the Court of Appeal, while OBCA appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

To avoid divided jurisdiction, the Divisional Court transferred the CBCA appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act and adjourned the OBCA appeal to allow the appellant to seek a transfer of that matter to the Court of Appeal under s. 6 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 24, 2023.

The motion was heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and apply for judicial review of three Landlord and Tenant Board orders, including a 2023 eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant's challenges were brought after the statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court denied the extension for the 2022 orders and the judicial review application due to lengthy delay and lack of merit.

However, the court granted a short extension of time to appeal the 2023 eviction order, imposing strict conditions including the payment of ongoing rent.

The appellant tenant appealed an LTB order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

He argued procedural unfairness because the LTB member had initially dismissed the landlord's application at a hearing scheduled in error, but then reversed the dismissal and rescheduled the hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, and the eviction order was made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the LTB member was correcting a mistake and the tenant had received notice of the new hearing date.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The eviction was ordered after the tenant failed to make payments required under a prior consent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the LTB's decision was based on factual findings regarding the tenant's failure to pay.

The eviction was permitted to be enforced, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The moving party, Sussex Strategy Group Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated June 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits on the basis that it was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant had returned to work immediately after the accident but stopped working 16 months later, at which point he applied for benefits.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the doctrine of discoverability.

Following Tomec, the court held that the limitation period could not begin to run before the appellant became eligible for the benefits.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akbarali J. dated April 27, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Merritt J. dated June 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

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

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Ministry decision affirming the acceptance of a competitor's aggregate permit application as complete.

The applicant argued the Ministry unreasonably justified its acceptance of the competitor's application and failed to concurrently reconsider the applicant's own application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry provided a reasoned explanation for departing from its policies regarding site visits and archaeological checklists, and that concurrent reconsideration was not required to meet the reasonableness standard.

The appellant, a former bank executive, appealed a decision dismissing his motion to amend his wrongful dismissal statement of claim.

He sought to add a $10 million claim for unjust enrichment and disgorgement, arguing the employer profited from retaining his unpaid compensation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment legally untenable.

The court held there was no corresponding deprivation to the employer's enrichment, as the appellant's loss was limited to the time value of money, which is adequately addressed by the interest provisions in the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision finding he breached a settlement agreement regarding excessive noise.

On appeal, the appellant argued the CAT provided inadequate reasons for dismissing his defence that the condominium corporation harassed him, and erred in awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CAT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the harassment claims under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, and that the discretionary costs award revealed no error in principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a college.

The tribunal had dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish a connection between her removal from an academic program and any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the tribunal's decision exhibited the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision that declined to dismiss his proceeding under Rule 2.1.

However, the motion for leave to appeal sought summary judgment, an order preventing a Rule 21 motion, and costs, none of which were addressed in the underlying decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the relief sought was not the proper subject matter of an appeal from the decision.

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

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