Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father equal parenting time with their two-year-old child.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by ignoring the status quo, minimizing allegations of family violence, and failing to adequately consider the child's medical conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests under the Divorce Act.

The court held that the motion judge properly considered the father's willingness to care for the child, the unlikelihood of family violence recurring post-separation, and the maximum contact principle.

The appellants brought motions under Rule 59.06 to set aside a 2018 Divisional Court judgment that upheld securities fraud findings and sanctions against them.

In response, the Ontario Securities Commission moved for security for costs and to strike out seven expert reports filed by the appellants.

The Divisional Court granted the Commission's motions, ordering the appellants to post $100,000 in security for costs due to unpaid prior costs awards.

The court also struck out all seven expert reports, finding they improperly opined on matters of domestic law and factual findings that are the exclusive province of the court, failing the necessity criterion for expert evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination after the National Committee on Accreditation required him to complete two years of in-class instruction because his foreign law degree was obtained through online self-study.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the mode of study policy was not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and applied to all students regardless of place of origin, age, or family status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to commence an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the tenant a 30% rent abatement after the landlord removed a roof deck and offered a portion of a shared courtyard in exchange.

The landlord argued the LTB erred in law by finding this was a discontinuance of a facility rather than a mere change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB properly applied the relevant legal principles to assess the adequacy of the exchanged facility and made no error of law in concluding the roof deck's removal was an unreasonable discontinuance.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The moving party sought a panel review under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act of a single judge's decision denying an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a City Council zoning decision.

The moving party attempted to introduce new affidavit evidence, which the panel rejected as improper and available at the original hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's discretionary decision to deny the extension due to unexplained delay and prejudice.

The applicant purchaser sought judicial review of an arbitrator's costs award that ordered him to pay the respondent vendor's legal fees on a substantial indemnity basis following a dismissed arbitration over a cancelled condominium project.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction because the arbitration was mandatory under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Court held the arbitrator's costs decision was unreasonable and internally inconsistent, as it failed to properly apply the specific costs regime in the Tarion Addendum which presumes the vendor pays the purchaser's reasonable legal expenses absent just cause.

The costs award was quashed and remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision dismissing its motion for a charging order against its former client's bank account under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act.

The appellant had represented the respondent in a civil fraud action where the respondent's assets were frozen by a Mareva injunction.

The motion judge found that the funds were not recovered or preserved through the instrumentality of the appellant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of legal principles or exercise of discretion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Mandhane J. dated October 10, 2024.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Audet J. dated December 20, 2024.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Kurz J. dated October 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $1,646.00.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct arose from profane and abusive comments the applicant submitted to an anonymous virtual suggestion box intended for EDI initiatives.

The applicant argued the process was an abuse of process due to entrapment and that his comments were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Commission's application of the legal principles, including the test for privilege, as the comments fell outside the purpose of the suggestion box.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision upholding their eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit late medical evidence regarding their disability at a second review hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board provided a high degree of procedural fairness by granting multiple adjournments and a second review hearing, and the Member properly exercised discretion in excluding the late evidence.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal succeeded, the tenant could not be restored to the unit as it had been lawfully re-rented to an arm's-length party.

The respondent physicians brought motions to strike out an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of her applications for judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The moving parties argued the affidavit contained impermissible evidence, argument, and matters outside the applicant's knowledge.

The court noted the general reluctance to determine evidentiary admissibility in advance of a judicial review hearing.

Given the mixed nature of the proposed evidence and uncertainty regarding its relevance to procedural fairness arguments, the court adjourned the motions to be decided by the panel hearing the applications.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal from orders requiring them to post security for costs and pay costs of the motions.

The underlying action involved claims of environmental contamination against the municipality and its employees.

The court applied the Paulsson factors and found that the moving parties' delay was lengthy, their explanations for the delay were not compelling, and the overall justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

In the context of an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision, the applicant issued summonses to witness to two former HRTO Associate Chairs and the Registrar, seeking internal documents regarding the HRTO's standard of proof protocol.

The HRTO brought motions to quash the summonses and to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by a former adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motions, finding that the summonses were a fishing expedition without a reasonable evidentiary basis, and that the challenged portions of the affidavit were protected by deliberative secrecy.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment.

On appeal, the tenants argued the Board wrongfully admitted hearsay evidence, failed to consider mandatory relief from eviction under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and conducted an unfair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenants failed to raise these issues at the Board, failed to provide a complete transcript, and failed to establish any legal error or procedural unfairness.

The eviction was delayed until March 31, 2025.

The applicants, tow truck drivers with decades of experience, sought judicial review of O. Reg. 167/23 under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The regulation disqualified them from obtaining a tow certificate due to mandatory lifetime weapons prohibitions stemming from 20-year-old criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was not ultra vires as it reasonably aligned with the Act's purpose of combating crime in the towing industry.

The Court also dismissed the Charter challenges, holding that the evidentiary record did not establish criminal history as an analogous ground under s. 15, and that the regulatory disqualification constituted neither 'treatment' nor 'punishment' under s. 12.