Wendy M. Matheson

The self-represented appellant commenced an appeal in the Divisional Court from a final family law order granting spousal support and equalization.

The amounts ordered were well in excess of the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal, arguing prejudice from delay and that she had previously warned the appellant he was in the wrong court.

Applying the test under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court found there had been confusion regarding jurisdiction and ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal ordering him to remove a structure, originally gym equipment, from his balcony.

The Tribunal found the structure was not 'seasonal furniture' permitted under the condominium rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence by ignoring dictionary definitions and erred by relying on a Google search not in evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and no error of law, as the appellant had not objected to the Google search at the hearing.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued she had an ownership interest in the property under an agreement of purchase and sale, and raised issues of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and holding that the Board was entitled to determine the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant relief from eviction.

The appellant father appealed a case conference judge's order dismissing his Superior Court application to change a prior Ontario Court of Justice order regarding child support and custody.

The case conference judge had found that the Ontario Court of Justice was the more appropriate forum, as it had already been involved and the prior judge was best positioned to determine the issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the father's claim that the case conference judge exceeded his jurisdiction or failed to observe procedural fairness.

The moving parties, operators of a dog sledding business, sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision requiring them to pay over $500,000 for the costs of care of over 100 sled dogs removed by animal welfare authorities.

The stay was sought pending the determination of two related applications for judicial review challenging the underlying compliance and removal orders.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the potential forfeiture and euthanization of the specially trained dogs, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay to prevent the judicial reviews from becoming moot.

The court granted the stay on terms, including a requirement for future submissions on financial security for ongoing care costs.

The moving party sought an interim stay of a decision that ended an ex parte interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with a mortgage, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying dispute involved a property development and a contest over the ownership of the moving party corporation.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the motion for leave to appeal was weak, there was no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favor extending the injunction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.

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

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

The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.

The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.

The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.

The applicants, a group of cottage owners, sought judicial review of a work permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to the respondents for the construction of a dock and walkway on a property that was the site of a former mine.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and breached their procedural fairness rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the MNRF's decision was reasonable as it relied on expert environmental assessments from other ministries and attached appropriate mitigation conditions.

The court also held that the MNRF met its procedural fairness obligations, noting that formal reasons were not required for a building permit application.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) applied for judicial review of a Coroner's preliminary ruling in an inquest into a fatal helicopter crash.

The Coroner had ordered the disclosure of certain aggregate and specific information about witness statements obtained during the TSB's investigation.

The TSB argued this information was protected by the statutory privilege in s. 30 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTSA).

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Coroner's decision unreasonable as it conflicted with the broad statutory privilege and the mandatory procedure for disclosure under s. 30(5) of the CTSA.

The applicants, police officers who took leaves of absence to serve as executives on the Ontario Provincial Police Association, sought an interim stay of a misconduct hearing pending their application for judicial review.

They argued the Adjudicator erred in finding they were still 'police officers' subject to discipline under the Police Services Act while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the misconduct proceedings to continue without further delay.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in ordering that the joint retainer of the accountant continue, and whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents under the retainer agreement.

Leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay, arguing the appeal was devoid of merit and an abuse of process due to unpaid rent.

The court found the appeal raised a procedural fairness issue, which constitutes a question of law, and was not manifestly devoid of merit.

Noting the tenant's partial payments and completion of appeal materials, the court declined to quash the appeal or lift the stay, but imposed strict terms requiring the tenant to pay ongoing rent plus $700 monthly towards arrears.

The tenant brought a motion for interim relief pending his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenant had been evicted based on the landlord's claim that her son required the unit, but the tenant presented new evidence suggesting the unit was re-rented to a non-family member.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and the Board's jurisdiction.

Balancing the factors, the court granted an interim order prohibiting the landlord from re-renting or changing the current use of the premises by family members until the appeal is heard, and expedited the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff and recertify a class proceeding.

The motion judge had previously decertified the action after the original representative plaintiff was found unsuitable and class counsel failed to find a replacement within the allotted 60 days.

Almost two years later, class counsel brought a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to relitigation and raised concerns about the lack of a costs indemnity agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the abuse of process doctrine or his factual findings.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for water damage allegedly caused by the respondent's window installation.

The Deputy Judge found the appellant failed to prove causation or damages, and alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no reviewable error in the Deputy Judge's discretionary award of double costs following an offer to settle.