Wendy M. Matheson

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Taylor J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that the interlocutory decision does not preclude any party from seeking relief on any issues in the case pursuant to Rules 20 and 21.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing its cross-motion for production of financial documents.

The court first determined that the underlying order was interlocutory, not final, as it arose from a discovery motion and did not finally determine substantive rights.

Consequently, the appeal lay to a single judge of the Superior Court rather than the Divisional Court.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that the justice of the case warranted granting the extension, noting the moving party's bona fide intention to appeal and the lack of significant prejudice to the respondent.

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

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

The defendants and plaintiffs both brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding the admissibility of evidence in a civil contempt proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on four issues concerning the application of sections 7 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to evidence compelled pursuant to a Mareva order and undertakings.

The court directed that the defendant be the appellant and the plaintiffs be the cross-appellants.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

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

The tenant argued that the notice of termination was invalid because it was signed by the landlord's property manager, and that section 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires an agent to be licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's interpretation that the Act does not define 'agent' and does not require an agent signing a notice of termination to be licensed to provide legal services.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for rent arrears.

At the hearing, the tenant sought to raise maintenance issues under s. 82(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act but provided only four days' notice instead of the required five.

The tenant argued that because the fifth day prior to the hearing fell on a Sunday, the time to serve notice was extended to Monday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the holiday extension rule did not apply because the notice requirement was to serve 'at least' five days prior, meaning nothing expired on the Sunday.

The Board's discretionary refusal to hear the issues was upheld.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The appellant brought a motion for interim relief pending her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found she was not a tenant and dismissed her wrongful lockout application.

She sought an order permitting her to live in the rental unit pending the appeal or a stay preventing the landlord from re-renting the unit.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but denied interim possession due to the balance of convenience.

However, the court granted a stay prohibiting the landlord from re-renting the premises pending the expedited appeal.

The appellant was struck by a car while riding his bicycle and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the application.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a video of the accident, permitting the respondent's expert to testify beyond the scope of his report, and refusing to allow the appellant to call reply evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a police service's decision to disclose non-conviction information on a vulnerable sector check.

The applicant argued the reconsideration process was procedurally unfair because the police did not disclose the underlying information relied upon to make the decision, preventing the applicant from knowing the case to meet.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that procedural fairness required the police to provide access to the relevant information before the applicant submitted written submissions for the reconsideration.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for a new reconsideration by a different decision-maker.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB order was made on consent, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears.

The tenant appealed, arguing procedural fairness issues regarding notice to other alleged tenants, and obtained an automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was an abuse of process designed to delay eviction while rent remained unpaid.

The court also noted the tenant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under s. 3.1(1) 2. iii of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant suffered a severe and permanent alteration of the structure of her leg, but her functional mobility impairment (measured by the SCIM) was only temporary.

The Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's interpretation that the SABS requires both the structural and functional alterations to be permanent to meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. dated September 3, 2021.

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

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Pinto J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated October 16, 2021.

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

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the College's Complaints Committee.

The Committee had investigated a patient's complaint regarding inappropriate physical contact and, while unable to determine exactly what occurred, required the physician to be cautioned and complete a remedial program regarding boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate for a screening function and the decision was reasonable based on the physician's own admissions about accepting hugs.

The Court also rejected the argument that publishing a summary of the decision on the public register constituted an unauthorized sanction.

The self-represented appellant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed her application for failure to appear and denied her request for reconsideration.

The appellant had missed the start of a telephone hearing due to a scheduling mistake and childcare duties, but attempted to join and emailed the tribunal within the scheduled hearing time.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant provided a sufficient explanation for her delay and that the HRTO's refusal to reconsider the dismissal was unreasonable.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new hearing date.

The appellant tenant sought an adjournment of an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision because their counsel failed to file the required appeal materials.

The respondent landlord objected, noting the tenant was in arrears of rent and hydro.

The Divisional Court granted a short adjournment to prevent prejudice to the client, on strict conditions that the appellant pay all arrears and file materials by a specified date, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.