Wendy M. Matheson

The applicants, owners of a designated heritage property, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind farm project.

The applicants argued the Director failed to properly interpret the REA Regulation regarding cultural heritage and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness, the Director's decision to issue the REA was reasonable and balanced the statutory priorities, and the comprehensive procedural code in the REA Regulation fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness.

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's order refusing to confirm an Assessment Officer's Report and Certificate regarding the respondent solicitor's accounts.

The solicitor had abandoned the assessment hearing after his adjournment request was denied.

The Assessment Officer reduced the accounts from over $1 million to $325,789.01.

The motion judge refused to confirm the report, finding the Assessment Officer's reasons inadequate and imposing an evidentiary burden on the client.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by reversing the onus of proof, which rests entirely on the solicitor to prove the reasonableness of his fees.

Given the solicitor's failure to adduce any evidence, the Assessment Officer's reasons were adequate.

The appellant appealed a 40-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal for selling alcohol to intoxicated patrons and permitting drunkenness, following two separate incidents where patrons left the establishment and were later found suffering from hypothermia (one fatally).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, no procedural unfairness from an incomplete recording of the hearing, and no error in principle regarding the sanction imposed.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his motion to quash disciplinary charges.

The charges arose from a complaint that the College failed to process according to the mandatory statutory requirements under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead of following the complaint process, the College invited the complainant to withdraw her complaint in favour of a Registrar's investigation under s. 75(1)(a).

The Divisional Court held that the College's failure to strictly comply with the statutory complaint procedures deprived it of jurisdiction to refer the matter to discipline.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the College was prohibited from prosecuting the charges.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee denying him standing under the Drainage Act to appeal a drainage works report.

The appellant argued he had standing as the spouse of the registered owner of the affected property and as a resident who paid bills.

The Divisional Court upheld the Referee's decision, finding it reasonable that the Family Law Act did not confer an ownership interest for the purposes of the Drainage Act, and that residing in the home did not make the appellant an 'owner'.

The court also dismissed arguments related to the Protection of Public Participation Act and a request for a stay, ultimately dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant brought a motion to expedite his appeal of an order dismissing his application for the production of corporate records.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to stay the appeal pending the outcome of a related trial appeal.

The court found that the appellant's grounds for expediting the appeal, including seeking documents to potentially argue for a different valuation date, were unpersuasive and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found the respondents' grounds for a stay insufficient.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order declaring that the parties had not settled the underlying action for non-payment of furnace equipment.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds regarding the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis for the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the parties had not agreed on a material term regarding the timing of payment and receipt of documents.

The court also found the Deputy Judge's brief reasons were adequate for the Small Claims Court context.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against the respondents for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant had sued for damages related to extra expenses and lost income after failing his truck driving test multiple times, disputing specific instructions in the Ministry of Transportation Truck Handbook.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no error of law in concluding the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, even when read generously.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, which found he sexually abused a patient and ordered mandatory revocation of his licence, along with a substantial costs award.

The appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but argued she was not his patient at the time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel's conclusion that a doctor-patient relationship existed was reasonable and supported by medical records.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding no error in principle despite its unusually high quantum, as it was driven by the appellant's defence strategy.

The appellant, holding 42% of the respondent corporation's shares, requisitioned a shareholders' meeting to remove certain directors.

The board rejected the requisition, claiming it was primarily to redress a personal grievance under s. 99(5)(b) of the Business Corporations Act.

The application judge agreed and dismissed the appellant's application to validate the requisition.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the application judge erred by reversing the onus and conflating personal interests with personal grievances.

The court held the dispute involved legitimate differences over corporate policy and operations, not merely personal grievances.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to call the meeting.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing the Board made procedural errors by issuing a faulty Confirmation of Filing that did not accurately reflect the Minister's question.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as they did not request the Board to reconsider its decision under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which would have allowed the Board to address the procedural errors and any resulting prejudice.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the respondent's wrongful dismissal claim.

The respondent, a former CSIS employee, alleged wrongful dismissal based on the revocation of his security clearance.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the CSIS Act provides a comprehensive administrative procedure for redress, precluding a civil action under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the respondent's claims for pre-termination salary and benefits were an abuse of process as they attempted to re-litigate issues already addressed through grievances.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision which found that the respondent police service did not discriminate against her when officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was taken to the hospital after officers spent an hour trying to convince her to attend voluntarily.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no defect in the Tribunal's proceedings or its conclusion that the officers had cause to apprehend the applicant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada denying his request to write the pharmacist qualification examination for a fifth time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the letter was not a reviewable decision but merely a statement of the existing rule limiting attempts.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the Act creating the Board and the rule limiting examination attempts were ultra vires, noting that the Board does not regulate the profession but merely administers an examination that provincial licensing bodies may use.

The plaintiff, EcoConcepts Management Services Inc., and the third parties (former board members) each moved for summary judgment against Peel Condominium Corporation No. 260.

The dispute arose from the termination of EcoConcepts' management contract, which included a highly contentious termination clause requiring payment for the remainder of a five-year term.

Allegations of fabricated documents, improper board authorization, and bad faith were central to the defendant's counterclaim and third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact, particularly concerning credibility and the circumstances surrounding the 2013 Agreement's authorization, required a full trial for a fair and just determination.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a Quebec default judgment against the personal defendant, Lorenzo Panarese, in Ontario.

Panarese challenged the Quebec court's jurisdiction and argued that the judgment should not be enforced due to breach of natural justice or fraud.

The court found that the Quebec court had a real and substantial connection to the dispute and that Panarese had attorned to its jurisdiction by participating in the Quebec proceedings without reserving on jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the defences of natural justice and fraud, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding of fraud and that issues of service and the right to be heard were already litigated and decided in Quebec.

The Ontario court granted recognition and enforcement of the Quebec judgment against Panarese.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought to enforce a personal guarantee against Sunny Bhasin, a director of Surje & Company Inc., for a corporate line of credit.

Default judgment had already been granted against the corporate defendant.

Bhasin argued that he was misled into signing the personal guarantee, claiming misrepresentation and non est factum.

The court found no misrepresentation by the Bank's employees, noting that the signed agreements clearly indicated personal liability and that Bhasin, a well-educated businessman, was careless in not reading the documents.

The court granted judgment in favour of RBC, enforcing the personal guarantee.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a social host liability claim arising from a party where an underage guest became intoxicated and was seriously injured in a car accident after leaving.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact that could not be fairly and justly determined on summary judgment.

The court also held that the established law on social host liability, particularly *Childs v. Desormeaux*, did not preclude a duty of care in this case, especially given the presence of underage drinking and the host's supervisory role.

The applicant lender sought a declaration of coverage under a title insurance policy after a private mortgage transaction was discovered to be an identity fraud.

The respondent insurer denied coverage, relying on an exception that applied if mortgage proceeds were paid to anyone other than the registered titleholder.

The funds had been disbursed to the borrower's lawyer in trust.

The court held that the exception was ambiguous and did not clearly require direct payment to the titleholder.

Construing the ambiguity against the insurer, the court found the exception did not apply and declared that the policy provided coverage for the loss.

The defendant solicitors requested an order dismissing the action against them under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff corporation alleged misappropriation of trust funds under the Construction Lien Act.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the core allegation of misappropriation of trust funds was not plainly an abuse of process on its face, though noting the plaintiff risked adverse costs and must be represented by a lawyer.