Wendy M. Matheson

The Law Society sought judicial review of a disclosure order made by the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division during an interlocutory suspension proceeding.

By the time the judicial review was heard, the Law Society had complied with the disclosure order and the interlocutory suspension had been imposed, rendering the disclosure issue moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issue, finding that the matter should have proceeded through the Tribunal's internal appeal process and that the Tribunal should be allowed time for its jurisprudence to evolve.

The appellant mother appealed an order directing the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

She argued the sale would prejudice the best interests of her autistic child, who had lived there since birth.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh expert evidence confirming that moving would be a high-level stressor for the child.

Applying the palpable and overriding error standard, the court found the motion judge erred in ordering the sale before the resolution of the Family Law Act claims, as it would defeat the mother's claims for exclusive possession and a vesting order.

The appeal was allowed and the sale orders were set aside.

The appellant sought judicial review of his removal and arrest from a city bus station for distributing pamphlets, seeking declaratory relief and an order quashing the trespass decision.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief because the Trespass to Property Act does not confer a statutory power of decision.

The court further found the application to quash was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice to be heard as a Charter application.

The appellant teacher appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards public health nurses and students during a school immunization clinic, where he expressed opposition to vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee's findings of misconduct and the imposed penalty, which included a one-month suspension and a two-year prohibition from attending school health clinics, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The tenant appellants appealed an eviction order and a subsequent LTB order denying their request for a review.

The tenants had attended the LTB for their hearing but left during a lunch break because the elevators broke down, and they could not climb 18 flights of stairs due to a disability.

The LTB member dismissed their review request without a hearing, finding they should have telephoned the Board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB denied the tenants natural justice by failing to hold a review hearing to consider their evidence regarding their inability to participate.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a review hearing.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that upheld an eviction order for rental arrears.

The tenant argued that his obligation to pay rent was discharged because the landlord's staff mistakenly refused his attempt to pay the arrears in cash.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the LTB's conclusion that a refused payment does not erase the debt.

The Court also found the LTB's refusal to set aside the eviction order was reasonable given the tenant's stated refusal to comply with any order to pay arrears.

However, the Court granted the tenant a final opportunity to pay the arrears in cash to avoid eviction.

The appellant brought a motion in writing seeking an order to compel the Landlord and Tenant Board to produce transcripts and the record of proceedings for her statutory appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the obligation to order transcripts and prepare the appeal book lies with the appellant, not the tribunal.

The court granted the appellant an extension of 30 days to comply with the Rules and perfect her appeal.

The appellant, a lawyer, retained the respondent law firm for a real estate purchase.

Due to a software error, the respondent failed to collect the Municipal Land Transfer Tax from the appellant before closing, but the tax was automatically withdrawn from the respondent's trust account.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court and won.

On appeal, the appellant argued the action was a nullity because the respondent failed to render an account under s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act before suing for a 'disbursement'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an independent tax obligation is not a disbursement for business done by a solicitor as such under the Act.

The applicants, including several religious physicians and organizations, challenged two policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that require physicians who object to providing certain medical services (such as abortion or medical assistance in dying) on religious or conscientious grounds to provide an 'effective referral' to a non-objecting provider.

The applicants argued these policies infringed their rights to freedom of religion and equality under the Charter.

The Divisional Court held that while the effective referral requirements did infringe the physicians' freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to ensure equitable access to healthcare for patients.

The court dismissed the applications.

The Town of New Tecumseth appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which found that the respondent's proposal to import fill to establish an apple orchard was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the Town's fill by-law.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings on the evidence and its interpretation of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

However, the Court granted the appeal in part to amend the Board's order, allowing the Town an opportunity to provide comments on the required fill management plan before it is finalized.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $9,002.09 in termination pay following a constructive dismissal.

The employee had been temporarily laid off and did not return when recalled, having found new employment.

The trial judge found the employment contract displaced the termination provisions of the Employment Standards Act to the employee's benefit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the employment contract.

The appellant subcontractor appealed a decision removing its construction lien and dismissing the action against the property owner.

The motions judge found the lien was not filed within the time required under the Construction Lien Act, as the late delivery of screens was deemed a trivial act intended solely to extend the lien period.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact, concluding the motions judge properly applied the law regarding whether remaining work was trivial or done in good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed an interlocutory order that lifted a stay on the respondent's motion to change custody and support.

The stay had originally been ordered under s. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to the respondent's non-payment of support arrears and costs.

The respondent consented to the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that lifting the stay without requiring the respondent to pay the outstanding arrears and costs was an error, granted the appeal, and set aside the order lifting the stay.

The appellant appealed an order changing her indefinite spousal support to a three-year step-down order.

She argued the motions judge erred by failing to consider pre-marriage cohabitation and by terminating an indefinite order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the cohabitation issue was not properly raised before the motions judge and that the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines permit the termination of indefinite support where the recipient has had an opportunity to become self-supporting.

The step-down order was upheld.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to stay the action pending the disposition of a separate oppression application involving the respondent's shareholders.

The oppression application included orders prohibiting the respondent from settling the current action.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and stayed the action, finding that the inability to settle the action severely undermined the respondent's authority to pursue it and prejudiced the appellants.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's assessment of conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's corporate control.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that reduced the penalty imposed on two firefighters for off-duty impaired driving convictions.

The firefighters had lost their driver's licenses and were demoted for one year by the City.

The arbitrator substituted a two-day suspension, finding the demotions were disciplinary and the firefighters could still perform their core duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's exercise of discretion to substitute the penalty was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of commercial benchmarking data provided to the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misapprehended evidence and applied too high a standard of proof for the third-party records exemption under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm to its competitive position if the redacted information was disclosed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's appeal decision regarding a catastrophic impairment determination under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Delegate had overturned an arbitrator's finding that combining impairment ratings for a physical brain injury and a separate psychological disorder constituted impermissible 'double counting'.

The Delegate also remitted the issue of medication impairment back to arbitration and upheld a 4% rating for scarring.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's interpretation of the AMA Guides and the Schedule fell within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The appeal raised an important issue regarding the jurisdiction of a Discipline Committee over a member's prior conduct.

As the respondents did not participate, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal and granted leave under Rule 13.03 to request Pro Bono Law Ontario to appoint amicus curiae to assist the court.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of an unredacted forensic investigation report.

The Commissioner found that the report contained personal information exempt from disclosure under s. 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but ordered full disclosure based on the public interest override in s. 16.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the Commissioner's failure to identify the specific personal information exempted under s. 14 made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the s. 16 balancing analysis.