Wendy M. Matheson

The appellants appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board affirming a public health order to produce patient contact information following an infection control lapse at a dental clinic.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to exclude the appellant's husband, who acted as her agent, on its own initiative due to his alleged incompetence and prior inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation on the tribunal to inquire into the competence of a chosen agent or to exclude him absent an objection or clear prejudice.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding her complaints of police misconduct.

The applicant had filed an initial complaint about an officer's conduct, and later added a second complaint alleging unlawful arrest.

The OIPRD investigated and dismissed the first complaint but inadvertently failed to screen or investigate the second complaint.

The Divisional Court held that the failure to investigate the second complaint was unreasonable and ordered it remitted to the OIPRD for investigation by a different investigator.

However, the court found the OIPRD's decision dismissing the initial complaint was reasonable and upheld that portion of the decision.

The applicant, a Nurse Manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding an order by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses.

The ICRC ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program after a resident signed a 'Do Not Resuscitate' (DNR) form without a proper capacity assessment, despite the applicant having found the resident lacked capacity days earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable as the core issue was the failure to properly assess capacity, not whether the resident actually had capacity at the time.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment based on a limitation period defence.

The Divisional Court noted that although the motion judge made findings about the limitation period defence, there was no order in that regard, making the order interlocutory.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord's mother to move into the property.

The tenants challenged the Board's finding that the landlords required the unit in good faith for the mother's residential occupation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the finding of good faith and intended full-time occupancy were findings of fact, and the appeal raised no extricable question of law as required by s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant, a statutory third party, appealed a motions judge's order refusing leave to serve and file a jury notice on behalf of the defendants, despite the plaintiff's consent.

The motions judge had cited pandemic-related court backlogs as the reason for refusal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred in law by failing to articulate the applicable test, failing to consider the overall context including companion actions with existing jury notices, and failing to consider whether the jury notice would actually cause delay.

Leave was granted to file the jury notice.

York University and York University Development Corporation (YUDC) sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision denying their request for reconsideration of an order requiring the production of certain records.

The applicants argued the Adjudicator erred in finding the records were under the control of York University pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and in her approach to the reconsideration threshold.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Adjudicator reasonably applied the two-part control test from National Defence and reasonably placed the onus on the applicants to establish grounds for reconsideration.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of defence without leave to amend.

The underlying action sought to enforce costs awards against the appellants.

The Associate Justice struck the defence after finding the appellants had flouted multiple peremptory court orders and a 'last chance' order regarding discovery and case management steps.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion to strike the pleading due to contumelious disregard for court orders.

The self-represented moving party requested a short adjournment of his motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal due to technical challenges, illness, and the need to cross-examine a responding witness.

The Ontario Land Tribunal and the City of Toronto took no position, while the respondent developer opposed the request.

The court granted the adjournment on peremptory terms, setting a schedule for cross-examination and the filing of materials.

The appellant, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, appealed an interlocutory order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal requiring him to produce the personal and corporate tax records of his housekeeper.

The insurer sought the records to determine if the housekeeper suffered an economic loss.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not premature because the order was fatally flawed.

The Adjudicator erred in law by finding without evidence that the housekeeper was the appellant's spouse, by requiring evidence of economic loss when the appellant claimed the services were provided in the ordinary course of the housekeeper's employment, and by ordering production of third-party records outside the appellant's control.

The appeal was granted and the production order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision that certified a union and dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration.

The applicant had filed its response to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit via courier, but the OLRB rejected it for failing to comply with a COVID-19 'Notice to Community' requiring electronic filing, despite the OLRB's own forms and rules permitting courier delivery.

The Divisional Court found a breach of procedural fairness, quashed the OLRB's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Board to be decided on its merits.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ordering the College to register the respondent as a psychological associate.

The respondent had completed an online master's degree, which the College's Registration Committee found did not meet the resident study requirement and was not substantially similar.

The Board found the Committee acted improperly by not following the Board's prior recommendation that the program was substantially similar.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the Board's recommendation and that the Board erred in finding an improper exercise of power.

The matter was remitted to a newly constituted panel of the Registration Committee.

The appellant contractor appealed a summary judgment decision enforcing a stipulated remedy in a mediated settlement agreement.

The settlement required the appellant to remediate construction deficiencies by a deadline, failing which $30,000 held in court would be forfeited to the respondent.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to remediate the deficiencies and declined to grant relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's characterization of the clause as a forfeiture rather than a penalty, nor in her conclusion that enforcing the forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outlines were provided.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding arising from a data breach involving the respondents and Cambridge Analytica.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that there was no evidence that Canadian users' data had actually been shared with Cambridge Analytica, failing the common issues requirement under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the certification test, did not require the appellant to prove loss at the certification stage, and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of the evidence or interpretation of the carriage orders.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to deny them the right to rent space for a Hallowe'en-themed event due to alleged harassment of staff.

The Board raised a preliminary issue that the decision was a private contractual matter and not subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the decision to not enter into a short-term rental agreement was an exercise of private law discretion, not a statutory power of decision or a matter of sufficient public character.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and a subsequent costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the responding party plaintiff.

The statutory third party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J. Ramsay J. dated December 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the appellant to schedule a case conference.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant, a member of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, sought judicial review to quash the appointment of investigators who were investigating her failure to pay legal costs to the College.

The applicant argued the College lacked jurisdiction as inability to pay cannot constitute professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative processes should run their full course before judicial intervention.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision terminating his duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

The applicant alleged the union failed to assist him with WSIB claims and a constructive dismissal dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the duty of fair representation does not extend to WSIB matters and the applicant had not sought the union's assistance regarding his termination.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness or Charter rights.