Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her treating physician's finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medications.

The appellant argued the Board erred in applying the capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act and misapprehended the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the legal principles from Starson v. Swayze and reasonably concluded the appellant could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her treatment decision.

The plaintiff purchased an edge banding machine from the defendant for its cabinetry business.

The machine failed to perform its more sophisticated functions, such as rounding, which the court found to be a breach of implicit terms of the contract.

However, because the plaintiff had accepted the goods under the Sale of Goods Act, the breach of condition was treated as a breach of warranty.

The court found the plaintiff failed to fully mitigate its damages by not taking reasonable steps to sell the machine.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for 50% of the contract price plus HST, totaling $76,275.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his title insurer, FCT, for amounts owing under a policy following a mortgage fraud.

The parties agreed that some amount was owing, leaving only the quantification of interest and coverage of certain fees in dispute.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compound interest as provided in the mortgage, rejecting FCT's argument to substitute statutory interest.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for a notice of sale fee and a lender's fee, finding they were not covered under the policy's terms.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that the employer and union violated the Pay Equity Act by agreeing to reduce the wages of a female-dominated job class.

The employer argued the reduction was a temporary measure to avoid contracting out work and was justified under exceptions in the Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Act prohibits reducing wages of employees who have achieved pay equity, and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the union to contribute to the wage adjustments.

The appellants, owners of waterfront properties on Nottawasaga Bay, appealed a decision of the Coordinator in the Office of the Surveyor General confirming a municipal resurvey under the Surveys Act.

The resurvey extended two road allowances straight across accreted lands to the water's edge, effectively cutting off the appellants' water access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Coordinator's decision was unreasonable.

The Court held that the Surveys Act does not displace the common law principles of accretion, which dictate that accreted lands attach to riparian properties and should be equitably allocated.

The matter was remitted for a trial of an issue regarding whether the survey should be confirmed with or without amendments.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision on a threshold motion in a motor vehicle accident case, which found her injuries did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's costs award, arguing the threshold decision should have been considered in the costs analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the medical evidence.

The court granted the respondent's cross-appeal on costs, applying the recent decision in Saleh v. Nebel, and remitted the costs issue to the trial judge.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decisions reinstating two Transit Safety Officers who were discharged for misconduct.

The GSB had found that the employer breached a sunset clause by considering expired disciplinary records when deciding to terminate the employees.

Relying on the Molson's case, the GSB concluded it was bound to void the discipline entirely and reinstate the employees with full compensation.

The Divisional Court granted the applications for judicial review, holding that the GSB erred by failing to consider all relevant circumstances before applying Molson's and by failing to consider its statutory discretion to substitute a penalty under s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act.

The decisions were quashed and remitted to the GSB.

The applicant, a chartered accountant, sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that revoked his licence for professional misconduct related to a tax minimization plan.

The applicant argued the Appeal Committee applied the wrong standard of review and impermissibly interfered with the Discipline Committee's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeal Committee correctly applied a reasonableness standard and did not overturn factual findings, but rather reasonably concluded that the applicant's reliance on a colleague's tacit approval of the plan did not excuse his misconduct.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee dismissing allegations of patient abuse against a registered nurse.

The allegations involved the nurse allegedly slapping a psychiatric patient across the face.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations after finding the evidence of the two complaining nurses to be inconsistent and not credible, while finding the respondent nurse's denials to be plausible.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding that the credibility assessments and factual findings were defensible and supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged he was not interviewed for a municipal job due to discrimination based on race and origin, and that the job posting's preference for 'lived immigration experience' was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's conclusion that the applicant failed to show his non-Canadian experience was disregarded was reasonable.

The Court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant insurer sought judicial review of a decision upholding an arbitrator's finding that the respondent insured was involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insured, while using his vehicle as a taxi, was assaulted by a passenger, pushed, and slipped on ice while attempting to close the vehicle's door.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the arbitrator and Director's Delegate to conclude that the incident arose out of the ordinary use or operation of an automobile and that the use or operation was a direct cause of the impairment, as the assault was not an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $6,400, while the appellant argued for no costs.

The court found no justification to depart from the usual rule of partial indemnity costs and fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $3,500 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application for an assessment of their former lawyer's accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The parties had previously settled a related action and signed a mutual release.

The appellants argued the release was void under s. 22 of the Solicitors Act and that special circumstances existed to justify an assessment more than 12 months after the accounts were rendered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 22 does not prevent a client from settling litigation with their lawyer, and that the application judge made no error in principle in finding no special circumstances.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld the Hearing Division's finding that she knowingly participated in mortgage fraud in six real estate transactions and revoked her licence.

The appellant argued the Hearing Division lacked jurisdiction to render a decision with only two members, improperly relied on an expert report, and unreasonably found she had the requisite intent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the two remaining members to complete the hearing, the expert report was properly used to understand red flags of fraud, and the finding of knowing participation in fraud was reasonable.

The appellant First Nation appealed a costs decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the 'polluter pays' principle and by not considering the appellant's First Nation status when assessing whether the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, costs are only awarded for unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct.

The Court found that the 'polluter pays' principle does not apply to costs considerations and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the respondent's conduct in defending the appeal was not unreasonable.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of their employment.

They elected to opt out of WSIA benefits to join a class action and subsequently applied for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

After the class action was dismissed, the insurer terminated their SABS, arguing the election was invalid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the election was made in good faith to pursue the class action, not primarily to claim SABS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that the ultimate dismissal of the class action did not retroactively invalidate the good faith of the initial election.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaints against his former employer and union.

The complaints arose after the applicant's employment was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment, which was subsequently resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order to the Divisional Court.

The panel raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the order was made in a proceeding where both parties sought a divorce.

Under section 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act, claims for custody and access are stayed in favour of the Divorce Act when a divorce is claimed.

Because the order was made under the Divorce Act, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court found the father had a meritorious appeal regarding the termination of his access and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant children's aid society appealed a temporary order placing a newborn child in the care of the respondent parents subject to supervision terms.

The society argued the application judge erred by imposing terms irreconcilable with his findings regarding the mother's mental health and the father's prior criminal conviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the test under section 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and made no palpable and overriding error.

The Court also dismissed the society's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the paternal grandfather's criminal record, applying a relaxed test but finding the evidence would not have affected the result.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions dismissing her application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval granted to an adjacent asphalt plant, and refusing to reconsider that dismissal.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the applicant's submissions regarding zoning, noise, and past environmental breaches.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes and dismissed the application for judicial review.