Wendy M. Matheson

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its certification application.

The OLRB had determined that the respondent's work of relining existing sewer pipes using cured-in-place-pipe was maintenance work, not construction work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OLRB's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its application of its own jurisprudence were internally coherent, rational, and entitled to deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Tribunal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, resulting in the revocation of his licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its credibility assessments, misapplied the concept of incremental disclosure, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's detailed and nuanced credibility findings, which preferred the patient's evidence over the appellant's.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of pay for personal leave days taken by a locomotive engineer under the Canada Labour Code.

The arbitrator found that because the collective agreement did not specifically provide a method for calculating personal leave pay, the default calculation under s. 17(a) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations applied, rather than the 'basic day' rate argued by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation and the collective agreement was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of ensuring employees do not suffer a wage loss when taking personal leave.

The appellant insurer appealed a preliminary issue decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding whether the respondent's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The LAT intervened to raise a preliminary issue regarding the Divisional Court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, confirming that appeals lie only from final decisions of the LAT to prevent fragmentation and delay.

The court also declined the parties' joint request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion to strike out parts of an affidavit filed by the applicants in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the vires of O. Reg. 382/19.

The moving party argued the affidavit contained inadmissible legal argument, opinion, and irrelevant evidence that did not fall within the narrow exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The court adopted a hybrid approach, striking out paragraphs containing clear legal argument and opinion, while adjourning the balance of the motion to the panel hearing the application on its merits.

Counsel for the corporate applicants brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record in an application for judicial review.

The applicants did not respond to the motion or attend the case conference.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the applicants or respondents, and ordered the applicants to address proper representation under Rule 15.01(2) within 30 days, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of an interlocutory disclosure decision made by the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The applicants sought to review the Tribunal's dismissal of their motion for additional disclosure, which they argued was necessary for their upcoming stay motions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was premature and that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting early intervention in the ongoing administrative proceedings.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 24, 2023.

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 February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,700.

The applicant moved to strike out an affidavit delivered by the respondent in response to an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The applicant argued the affidavit did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting a party to supplement the record of proceedings.

The court found that the bulk of the affidavit improperly appended and discussed documents already in the record.

However, the court noted that evidence regarding an unrecorded oral ruling could fall within the exception for procedural defects not apparent on the record.

The court struck the affidavit but granted leave for both parties to deliver new affidavit evidence strictly limited to their recollection of whether an oral ruling was made.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,000 all inclusive.

The appellant moved for a stay of an ongoing Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding his claim for statutory accident benefits, pending the determination of his application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged an interlocutory LAT decision denying the appellant's request to convert a written hearing into an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the application for judicial review was premature as the LAT proceedings had not yet concluded, and the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify court intervention at this stage.

The appellants appealed a class proceedings judge's refusal to approve $70,000 in honorariums for two representative plaintiffs and three class members from a $10 million class action settlement fund regarding institutional sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court reviewed the jurisprudence on representative plaintiff compensation, confirming that such payments should be rare, modest, and reserved for exceptional circumstances to avoid conflicts of interest.

The court granted the appeal in part, awarding $7,500 to the lead representative plaintiff for her exceptional contribution and exposure to re-traumatization, but dismissed the requests for the co-representative plaintiff and the other class members.

The moving party, a not-for-profit corporation, sought an urgent stay of an application judge's order prescribing the process for determining membership and voting rights for an upcoming annual general meeting, pending an appeal.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, that there was potential for irreparable harm due to the history of disruption at previous meetings, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the expedited appeal date, the court granted the stay.

The appellant tenant, who suffers from a mental health disability, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her due to disruptive and threatening behaviour towards other tenants.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code, failed to consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and denied her procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined that accommodating the tenant caused undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, properly exercised its discretion regarding relief from eviction, and appropriately admitted and weighed hearsay evidence.

The appellant sought to appeal an endorsement directing the registrar to issue a Rule 2.1 notice in the underlying proceedings, as well as a scheduling decision from Civil Practice Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The court held that there is no right to appeal the administrative step of issuing a Rule 2.1 notice before a final decision is made, and the scheduling decision was an interlocutory order for which leave to appeal had not been sought.

The appellant, a self-represented tenant living in a commercial unit, sought an interim stay of a writ of possession pending her appeal of the application judge's decision.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously determined the tenancy was commercial, not residential.

The respondent landlord faced municipal fines for zoning violations due to the appellant's residential use of the commercial property.

The Divisional Court found the appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but granted a brief extension of the stay until April 21, 2023, to allow the appellant more time to vacate, balancing her personal circumstances against the landlord's need for compliance.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord to demolish the rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board erred in finding the landlord took all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary demolition permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding was one of fact or mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the court found the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in determining that only the demolition permit, not a building permit, was relevant, and that vacant possession was required to obtain it.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her request to convert a scheduled videoconference hearing into a written hearing due to her psychological condition.

When the appellant's counsel declined to proceed without instructions, the adjudicator dismissed the application for statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias, denial of natural justice, or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of the hearing or her subsequent written and reconsideration decisions.