Wendy M. Matheson

The applicant, a daycare teacher, sought judicial review of decisions by the respondent children's aid society verifying an allegation of risk of sexual harm against him.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent's investigation was fundamentally flawed, superficial, and failed to follow mandatory investigative steps, such as interviewing key witnesses and examining the physical layout of the daycare.

The court quashed the respondent's decisions, finding them unreasonable, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's dismissal of its motion to strike an application brought by a convicted offender seeking post-conviction disclosure of police records.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge's one-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient reasons regarding the plain and obvious test, standing, and prematurity, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was granted, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different judge of the Superior Court for a fresh hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a work jurisdiction dispute over exterior concrete formwork at a hospital construction project.

The Board had upheld the employer's assignment of the work to a composite crew of Carpenters and Labourers, finding that the Labourers' collective agreement did not explicitly claim the disputed work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that the Board was not bound to follow its prior decisions where the circumstances or arguments differed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their limitation period defence in a dispute over a 2009 condominium purchase.

The respondent commenced the action in 2015 after being denied use of a second parking spot in 2013.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to apply the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove they did not know of the claim.

The appeal was granted and the limitation issue was remitted back to the Small Claims Court to be decided at trial.

The applicant, a medical school graduate, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Examiners requiring him to undergo remediation for a lapse in professionalism.

The applicant had initiated an internal appeal but abandoned it, choosing instead to complete the remediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his internal appeal remedies and demonstrated no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the administrative process.

The appellant landlord appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to return the balance of the respondent tenant's security deposit.

The motions judge had found that the landlord was barred from claiming Additional Rent adjustments for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 lease years because it failed to provide notice within 180 days of its financial year end, as required by the lease.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's interpretation of the lease, finding it consistent with the language and the six-month limitation on tenants seeking readjustment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders arising from summary judgment motions, while also commencing appeals in the Court of Appeal.

Noting potential jurisdictional issues regarding whether the underlying orders were final or interlocutory, the Divisional Court adjourned the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the parties to provide supplementary written submissions on the jurisdictional question.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

The plaintiff and defendant engaged in a joint venture to purchase, demolish, rebuild, and sell two residential properties.

Following the sale of the second property, the parties disputed the division of the net proceeds, which were paid into court.

Due to poor record-keeping and extensive cash payments, the court had to determine the total cost of construction and the respective financial advances made by each party.

The court calculated the net outstanding advances owed to each party and ordered that these amounts be paid out before the remaining funds are split 65/35 in accordance with their agreement.

The appellant landlord brought a motion to vary a single judge's order that had dismissed her four ongoing proceedings against the respondent tenants.

The single judge had dismissed the proceedings because the appellant was absent, her husband was unauthorized to act as her agent, and the proceedings were improperly perfected.

On the motion to vary, the appellant was represented by counsel, curing the representation defect.

The Divisional Court granted the motion in part, permitting the statutory appeal to continue while dismissing the other duplicative proceedings.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the motion appealed from and the related motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs for the leave motion because the judge granting leave did not address costs in their order or reasons.

However, the court awarded the appellant costs of $12,500 for the attendance before the motion judge, finding it fair and reasonable that costs follow the event in the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that she was an independent contractor rather than a dependent contractor.

The appellant conceded the trial judge used the correct legal test from McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., but argued he erred in its application.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly considered the factors of economic dependency, exclusivity, and permanency, and that his findings were open to him on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed limestone quarry.

The appellants argued the OMB breached procedural fairness during a partial re-hearing and misapprehended evidence regarding at-risk turtles and noise levels.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the appellants had consented to the re-hearing process and that the OMB's evidentiary findings were reasonable.

However, the Court granted the appeal on one issue, finding the OMB erred in law by proposing noise mitigation measures that might require access to private lands without evidence of feasibility, and remitted that issue to the OMB.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination against his former employer.

The applicant alleged that his termination at age 46 was discriminatory and that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in its findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no errors of law and holding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the applicant's performance and the employer's business reasons for termination were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitral award which concluded that physician assistants fell within the scope of the paramedical bargaining unit under the collective agreement.

The hospital argued the arbitrator exceeded his mandate and applied an overly broad definition of 'paramedical'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, grounded in the ordinary meaning of the word, the parties' practice, and labour jurisprudence, and did not improperly sweep in other excluded employee groups.

The appellant mother appealed a final order dismissing her application to relocate her daughter to Ottawa and transferring primary care to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motions judge made errors of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, including misapprehending the requirement for consent to relocate and failing to adequately analyze the child's best interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The motions judge correctly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, properly considered the mother's past conduct regarding communication, and reasonably concluded that transferring primary care to the father, who offered to relocate to Kingston to minimize disruption, was in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Tribunal denying his request to retroactively purchase membership in his employer's pension plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily because the applicant failed to exhaust his statutory right of appeal under the Pension Benefits Act and no special circumstances justified bypassing that route.

The Court also found that the application would fail on the merits, as the Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence and its discretionary decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to sell his interest in a jointly owned property to the respondent.

The parties had previously been ordered to list the property for sale, but the appellant repeatedly frustrated the sale process, including refusing to close after making the highest bid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's order was not a forced sale under the Partition Act, but rather a necessary step to implement and enforce a previous unappealed order for sale.

The applicant municipality brought an application for a declaration that the respondent Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate its Election Compliance Audit Committee and Property Standards Committee for alleged violations of open meeting requirements.

The Divisional Court held that neither committee falls within the definition of a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, as they are independent adjudicative bodies whose purposes are inconsistent with a municipality's power to dissolve a local board.

The Court granted a declaration that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate these committees, but declined to grant a broader declaration regarding all quasi-judicial tribunals or to quash the Ombudsman's non-binding report.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed a final order of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that increased the annual pole attachment charge payable to Hydro One Networks Inc. The appellants argued that the OEB breached procedural fairness by expanding the scope of their review and vary motion to include new evidence and issues, and erred in law by refusing to order production of a pole sharing agreement between Hydro One and Bell Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB conducted the hearing fairly by granting the appellants' request for a hearing de novo and allowing all parties to present updated evidence.

The Court also held that the OEB's refusal to order production of the actual agreement, while requiring disclosure of its relevant financial impacts, was within its procedural jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice.