Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) regarding a lot severance and zoning variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that most of the proposed issues were questions of mixed fact and law.

The one potential question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act did not raise good reason to doubt the correctness of the TLAB's decision.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent property owner, but no costs were awarded to the TLAB, which had unnecessarily participated in the motion contrary to a case management direction.

The applicant hotel suffered a fire that caused significant damage, leading to its closure and the layoff of its employees.

The respondent union grieved the employer's failure to pay termination pay.

The arbitrator found the employees were entitled to termination pay, rejecting the employer's argument that the employment contracts were frustrated under s. 2(1.4) of Ontario Regulation 288/01, because the employer always intended to reopen the hotel.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrator reasonably applied the test for frustration of contract and reasonably concluded that the temporary break in operations did not render the contracts radically different.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by breaching a condition prohibiting him from dispensing to or interacting with minors unsupervised.

The Divisional Court found the Committee interpreted the condition over-broadly and made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding three of the four alleged breaches.

The appeal was allowed in part, three findings of misconduct were set aside, and the penalty and costs orders were remitted to the Committee for redetermination.

The College's cross-appeal seeking revocation of the appellant's certificate was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reduced the current value assessments of several commercial properties.

MPAC argued the Board made legal errors by presuming the properties' current use was their highest and best use, by requiring annual determinations of highest and best use, and by failing to follow previous Board precedent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Court held that the presumption of current use merely reflects MPAC's statutory burden of proof, that annual assessments correctly account for changes in a property's state or condition, and that the Board is not strictly bound by its own prior decisions.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to be added as a responding party to an application for judicial review and for an order sealing a portion of the record.

The underlying application challenged an HPARB decision confirming a college committee's decision to take no further action on a complaint against a chiropractor.

The court granted the motion to add HPARB as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect the respondent's college history, continuing a prior disclosure order made by HPARB.

The moving party tenant sought to vary a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The tenant had appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction and arrears order but repeatedly failed to deliver his appeal materials despite multiple extensions of time.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the case management judge's discretionary decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the tenant's repeated failure to meet court-ordered schedules.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an order for the sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act, as well as a stay of the sale.

The moving party had initially filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed for delay, before commencing proceedings in the Divisional Court.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found that while the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay and the significant prejudice to a third-party purchaser with a binding agreement of purchase and sale weighed against granting the extension.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his application for income replacement benefits as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application after the appellant repeatedly failed to cooperate with an ordered independent psychological examination, including raising consent issues and threatening the psychologist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant's conduct constituted an abuse of process under its rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The moving party filed multiple versions of a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal a single judge's decision to the Divisional Court, which lacks jurisdiction for such an appeal.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 indicating it was considering dismissing the motion as an abuse of process.

The moving party failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support an adjournment request or substantive submissions in response to the notice.

The court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process but granted the moving party leave to commence a new motion seeking a review under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Di Luca J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the order as issued and entered was not a final order.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 27, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and requested a stay.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the motions judge erred in principle by relying on the responding party's evidence from an adjourned cross-motion without allowing the moving party an opportunity to respond.

The request for a stay was refused, and costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated January 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $3,613.74.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to agree upon a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The moving parties' motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of various orders was dismissed as abandoned.

The court ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Receiver.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal Paragraph 22 of the order of Perell J. dated February 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the parties to arrange a case conference regarding the conduct of the appeal.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion to stay a production order issued by Perell J. pending the disposition of their appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and ordered the stay.