Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time and for leave to appeal an earlier order of Cameron J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time on consent but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The applicant, a Member of Provincial Parliament, sought judicial review of a censure decision by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following her social media posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The respondents moved to strike the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, holding that the censure and the motion leading to it fell squarely within the established categories of parliamentary privilege, specifically the control over debates and proceedings and the disciplinary authority over members.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, even on Charter grounds.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator erred in law by failing to reference a Functional Capacity Evaluation, ignoring subjective evidence, demonstrating bias, and misapplying the test for suitable alternative employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator's failure to mention specific evidence did not constitute an error of law, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the adjudicator's factual findings supported the conclusion regardless of the specific employment factors considered.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the LAT erred in its catastrophic impairment analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the LAT's findings regarding the appellant's pre-existing psychological conditions were factual determinations supported by evidence, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions arising from her layoff and a letter of expectation.

The respondents argued the application was premature because one of the applicant's four OLRB applications was still ongoing following a successful reconsideration request.

The Divisional Court agreed that proceeding with the judicial review while related OLRB proceedings were ongoing would risk fragmentation and inconsistent findings.

The court adjourned the application for judicial review until the final decision on the outstanding OLRB application.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order dated March 20, 2024, as well as leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rees J. dated November 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 12, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to set aside an order striking out his defence to a counterclaim.

The Divisional Court found that the decision was interlocutory, not final, and therefore required leave to appeal.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a director's decision under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, which partially affirmed inspector's orders following a carbon monoxide poisoning incident.

The appellants argued the director erred by relying on insufficient evidence from an inadequate investigation and breached procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and failing to order document production.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the director properly weighed the evidence in an administrative context and that the written hearing met the requisite duty of fairness.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the time of the accident, the appellant was an on-call agency worker who had not worked for six weeks.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not 'employed' under s. 5(1)1(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applying the interpretation from Arab v. Unica Insurance that employment requires the exchange of remuneration for services over a defined period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a 2021 group grievance as an abuse of process.

The arbitrator had concluded the grievance was identical in substance to a 2017 grievance that was settled by a consent award.

In doing so, the arbitrator relied on her own notes and recollections from the without-prejudice mediation of the 2017 grievance, without notice to the union.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable as she failed to analyze the actual settlement agreement to determine if the union had impliedly accepted the employer's position.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hassan J. dated January 16, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of P. Sutherland J. dated July 20, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The tenants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that dismissed their motion to void a prior eviction order.

The LTB argued that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory LTB decision.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no statutory provision in the Residential Tenancies Act or the Courts of Justice Act conferring such jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to pursue their remedies at the LTB.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an endorsement of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that denied his motion to reinstate previous appeals and set aside a vexatious litigant order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

The Court found that the endorsement was not a final order giving rise to a statutory right of appeal under section 49.38 of the Law Society Act.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the proposed appeal as an abuse of process.

The Township of Oro-Medonte and a ratepayers' alliance appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that repealed a zoning by-law amendment aimed at regulating short-term rentals.

The Tribunal had found the by-law created a new land use prohibition that was overbroad and not in the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness, correctly interpreted the existing zoning by-law, and made no error of law in concluding the amendment did not represent good planning.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) upholding the dismissal of his complaints against seven police officers.

The complaints alleged police misconduct related to investigations of conflicts arising from a family law dispute, including recording an incorrect witness name, failing to meet disclosure obligations, and failing to enforce COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers acted in good faith and within their discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.