Wendy M. Matheson

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating a tenancy but denying jurisdiction to award compensation under an L3 application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to award compensation on an L3 application, which is strictly for termination.

However, the Court found a breach of procedural fairness because the LTB member determined the termination date without allowing the landlord to make submissions on that issue.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the specific termination date, while the jurisdiction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Capital Sports Management Inc., appealed a motion judge's order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents to the respondent, Trinity Development Group Inc. The motion judge had found an implied joint retainer of the law firm Gowlings by both parties in relation to a joint venture, and ordered production of documents up to the commencement of the litigation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the implied joint retainer terminated in May 2016 when the parties became materially adverse and threatened litigation against each other.

Furthermore, the respondent had acquiesced to Gowlings continuing to act solely for the appellant after that date.

The appeal was allowed, and the production order was narrowed to exclude documents created after May 2016.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that upheld findings of professional misconduct relating to five separate client matters over a five-year period.

The misconduct included breaching a Small Claims Court production order, failing to serve a client, breaching confidentiality by sending a termination letter containing legal advice to a client's psychiatrist, delaying the deposit of trust funds, misleading the court about an unpaid costs order, and improperly proposing a mutual withdrawal of Law Society complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law in the Appeal Panel's decision, and upheld the costs award against the appellant.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse for exposing his genitals to a minor, resulting in the revocation of his certificate.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its credibility assessments, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the minor's evidence and the lack of explicit findings on the appellant's credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's reasons, read contextually, adequately explained its rejection of the appellant's denial and correctly applied the law regarding child witness credibility and inconsistencies.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Kershman dated May 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on issues including whether the motion judge erred by certifying liability for increased risk, causation and damages, whether a class proceeding remains the preferable procedure, and whether a family class should have been certified.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Myers.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving party, a towing company, sought a stay of a decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal confirming the cancellation of its commercial vehicle operator's registration pending an appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety rating and the safety records of related parties involved in an unclosed sale of the business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the public interest in highway safety outweighed the potential financial harm to the moving party.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that there was no limitation period on the respondent's right to enforce a 1999 construction lien judgment due to the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The respondent cross-appealed on issues including the vacating of the lien, characterization of set-off claims, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the transitional provisions because the relevant 'proceeding' was the enforcement action, not the original suit.

The cross-appeal was allowed only to correct the formal order, removing findings of fact improperly included as orders.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the fixed amount of $21,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated June 9, 2022.

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

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use, arguing the application was retaliatory and in bad faith under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the documents were available before the hearing and were an attempt to reargue facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenants' arguments regarding retaliation, the landlord's conduct, and procedural fairness were essentially challenges to the LTB's factual findings, which do not constitute extricable errors of law.

The moving party mother sought a stay of a temporary order requiring her to return the child to the Guelph/Cambridge area pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The mother had relocated the child to Chatham without providing the required statutory notice to the father.

The court considered the test for a stay, focusing on the best interests of the child and the short timeframe before the leave motion would be heard.

The court ordered that the child continue to reside in the Guelph/Cambridge area but attend her new Chatham school virtually until the leave motion is decided.

The applicant union sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed grievances regarding the discharge of employees who could not complete a new job rotation due to disabilities.

The application was brought more than eight months after the award, well beyond the 30-day time limit in section 5(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court denied the extension of time under section 5(2), holding that the court retains discretion to consider the length of and explanation for the delay, and found the applicant's delay was lengthy and unexplained, and the grounds for relief were weak.

The applicant private schools sought judicial review of Ontario's decision to allocate the federal 'Safe Return to Class Fund' exclusively to public schools.

Ontario raised preliminary issues of timeliness and justiciability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the expenditure of public funds is a discretionary public policy decision made pursuant to the Crown's common law spending powers.

The court found that the funding allocation was a core policy choice and therefore not justiciable absent jurisdictional error, a constitutional challenge, bad faith, or irrationality, none of which were established.

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP sought leave to intervene as a party in an appeal brought by Capital Sports Management Inc. The underlying appeal challenged an order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents based on a finding of an implied joint retainer among Capital Sports, Trinity Development Group Inc., and Gowlings.

Gowlings argued it had a direct interest in the appeal because its conduct and advice were directly impugned.

The court granted Gowlings leave to intervene as a party with limited participation rights, finding that its focused submissions would likely be useful to the court in addressing significant issues about solicitor-client privilege after the breakdown of a relationship involving an implied joint retainer.