Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The appellant had repeatedly breached undertakings restricting him from performing dental implant therapy, resulting in harm to at least one patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was ungovernable and that revocation was the only appropriate penalty.

The Court also rejected arguments that the Committee's reasons were insufficient or based on irrelevant considerations.

The plaintiffs moved for an order staying or adjourning the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a case management judge's decision on a Rule 21 motion.

The Rule 21 motion was heard together with the first stage of a bifurcated certification motion in a proposed class proceeding arising from a mass shooting.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and granted the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured postponing the leave motion until after the second stage of the certification motion was decided to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee five months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent was terminated without cause after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in considering the respondent's pregnancy as a factor under the Bardal framework when determining the reasonable notice period, nor did the motion judge err in the costs award.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to declare a municipal election invalid.

They argued the removal of 1,131 names from the preliminary voters' list constituted an irregularity under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to adduce evidence that any voters were disenfranchised or that the presiding justice erred in concluding no irregularity occurred.

The moving party, a subcontractor, brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an Associate Justice's report arising from a 24-day consolidated construction lien trial.

The subcontractor argued that the Associate Justice erred in finding that the general contractor did not breach the payment terms, that the termination of the contract was justified, and that the general contractor did not breach the duty of good faith.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact or mixed fact and law in the Associate Justice's findings.

The motion to oppose confirmation was denied and the report was confirmed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Parole Board decision suspending her parole and issuing a Canada-wide arrest warrant.

The applicant had continued to report to her parole officer for months after the suspension, unaware of the warrant, and was even told she had successfully completed her sentence.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention despite the usual requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court held that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to effectively notify the applicant's parole officers of the suspension, and quashed the decision and related warrants.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related foot injury, argued that his employer discriminated against him by applying its absenteeism policy and failing to accommodate him.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review is reasonableness and found that the HRTO reasonably concluded the employer's application of its policies was not discriminatory, as the employer was entitled to rely on the WSIB's finding that the injury did not prevent the applicant from working.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a former audit partner, sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Committee of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, which upheld a finding of professional misconduct against him.

The misconduct related to his failure to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence regarding assets held by a service organization involved in the Madoff fraud.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the disciplinary committees reasonably applied the codified auditing standards (U.S. GAAS) and did not reverse the onus of proof or apply an incorrect standard of practice.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of J. Steele J. dated July 7, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Chalmers J. dated June 28, 2021, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The Cooperators General Insurance Company appealed a preliminary decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) finding that the claimant was a 'dependant' and thus an insured under the policy.

The claimant argued the appeal was premature as the hearing on the merits was scheduled for a later date.

The Divisional Court agreed, dismissing the appeal as premature to avoid fragmented administrative proceedings and inefficiency.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out her complaint against three police officers.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to lay additional charges against an individual and treated her with disrespect based on her gender and ethnicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness during the screening process.

The court held that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers' exercise of discretion did not constitute misconduct and that there was no evidence of bias or differential treatment.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court noted that while the motion judge made final determinations regarding two defences, the formal order was interlocutory as it simply dismissed the summary judgment motion.

Finding that the moving party failed to meet the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order, the court dismissed the motion.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated May 10, 2021.

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

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 of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pierce J. dated May 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding Rule 20 summary judgment motions and a class action certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with respect to the Rule 20 motions and the certification criteria under section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Costs of the leave motions were fixed at $2,500 to the successful party on the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated December 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000.