Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant buyer appealed a decision dismissing its motion for production of the respondent sellers' lawyer's file.

The appellant argued that the respondents impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied on legal advice in good faith when exercising a solicitor approval clause to terminate a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a denial of bad faith and an assertion of good faith reliance on legal advice does not amount to an implied waiver of privilege.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the solicitor approval clause.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to pay damages for an illegal eviction.

They argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the tenant shared a kitchen or bathroom with the owner under s. 5(i).

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the exemption does not apply when the owner is a corporation, as a corporation cannot 'live' in the premises or share facilities in the manner contemplated by the Act.

The court also dismissed the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, upholding the corrected damages award of $14,620.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 2, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 8, 2022.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated August 31, 2022.

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

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.

The appellant, an unqualified teacher who taught part-time credit courses between 1980 and 1989, sought retroactive pension credits from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed his application, finding he required a Letter of Permission (LOP) for each year of service to be eligible for credits, and that he failed to prove he had been granted any LOPs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the LOP requirement, the burden of proof, and the pension board's fiduciary duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory requirements, properly placed the onus of proof on the appellant, and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual findings regarding the absence of LOPs and the board's conduct.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 2, 2022.

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

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) for a self-employed lawyer injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator erred in law by applying section 4(2)3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which applies to employed persons, rather than section 4(3), which applies to self-employed persons.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction.

The Board found that the tenant substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment by repeatedly refusing entry to real estate agents, engaging in abusive behaviour, and sending threatening emails.

The tenant argued the Board erred by basing the eviction solely on his refusal to allow photographs of the unit and alleged bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant could not raise new issues not presented to the Board, the eviction was based on a broader pattern of conduct, and there was no evidence of bias.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board settlement order and a subsequent review order, arguing procedural unfairness because a term allowing eviction without notice under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act was included without their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the time period for the s. 78 term had expired without the landlord relying on it.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal were not moot, it would be dismissed because the Board has statutory discretion to include fair conditions in its orders, and the tenant raised no error of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against two physicians.

The complaints arose after the physicians reported the applicant to the Ministry of Transportation for a potential visual impairment, resulting in a temporary suspension of his driver's licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the HPARB's decisions were reasonable and that the physicians had complied with their mandatory reporting obligations under the Highway Traffic Act.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 12, 2022.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring the production of a witness statement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion reserved to the panel hearing the appeal and fixed at $3,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated August 19, 2022.

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

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant Health Unit sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that found it breached the collective agreement by offering straight-time payouts for accumulated comp time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Health Unit argued the breach was authorized by the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and O. Reg. 116/20.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review for interpreting the emergency order was correctness.

Although the court found the arbitration board erred in concluding the Act did not permit orders with financial consequences, it upheld the board's factual finding that the specific measure taken was not 'reasonably necessary' to respond to the outbreak.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him statutory accident benefits after he fell from the roof of his camper trailer while cleaning it.

The Adjudicator had found the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' because there was no evidence the appellant tripped on the trailer or that the trailer directly caused the fall.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by requiring direct physical contact with the vehicle to establish causation.

The court found that falling from the trailer while inspecting it was a normal incident of the risk created by its use, satisfying the definition of an accident under the Schedule.