Wendy M. Matheson

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and apply for judicial review of three Landlord and Tenant Board orders, including a 2023 eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant's challenges were brought after the statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court denied the extension for the 2022 orders and the judicial review application due to lengthy delay and lack of merit.

However, the court granted a short extension of time to appeal the 2023 eviction order, imposing strict conditions including the payment of ongoing rent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 24, 2023.

The motion was heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant tenant appealed an LTB order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

He argued procedural unfairness because the LTB member had initially dismissed the landlord's application at a hearing scheduled in error, but then reversed the dismissal and rescheduled the hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, and the eviction order was made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the LTB member was correcting a mistake and the tenant had received notice of the new hearing date.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The eviction was ordered after the tenant failed to make payments required under a prior consent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the LTB's decision was based on factual findings regarding the tenant's failure to pay.

The eviction was permitted to be enforced, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits on the basis that it was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant had returned to work immediately after the accident but stopped working 16 months later, at which point he applied for benefits.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the doctrine of discoverability.

Following Tomec, the court held that the limitation period could not begin to run before the appellant became eligible for the benefits.

The moving party, Sussex Strategy Group Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated June 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Merritt J. dated June 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000, all inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akbarali J. dated April 27, 2023.

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

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Ministry decision affirming the acceptance of a competitor's aggregate permit application as complete.

The applicant argued the Ministry unreasonably justified its acceptance of the competitor's application and failed to concurrently reconsider the applicant's own application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry provided a reasoned explanation for departing from its policies regarding site visits and archaeological checklists, and that concurrent reconsideration was not required to meet the reasonableness standard.

The appellant, a former bank executive, appealed a decision dismissing his motion to amend his wrongful dismissal statement of claim.

He sought to add a $10 million claim for unjust enrichment and disgorgement, arguing the employer profited from retaining his unpaid compensation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment legally untenable.

The court held there was no corresponding deprivation to the employer's enrichment, as the appellant's loss was limited to the time value of money, which is adequately addressed by the interest provisions in the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision finding he breached a settlement agreement regarding excessive noise.

On appeal, the appellant argued the CAT provided inadequate reasons for dismissing his defence that the condominium corporation harassed him, and erred in awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CAT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the harassment claims under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, and that the discretionary costs award revealed no error in principle.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision that declined to dismiss his proceeding under Rule 2.1.

However, the motion for leave to appeal sought summary judgment, an order preventing a Rule 21 motion, and costs, none of which were addressed in the underlying decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the relief sought was not the proper subject matter of an appeal from the decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a college.

The tribunal had dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish a connection between her removal from an academic program and any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the tribunal's decision exhibited the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Van Melle J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated April 14, 2023.

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

The applicant, a crypto asset trading platform, sought judicial review of an investigation order and summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant argued the investigation was precluded by a prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process, and that the summons violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the undertaking contained an express reservation of rights that permitted the investigation.

The court declined to decide the Charter issue, holding it should first be raised before the Commission.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting a rent abatement to a tenant for noise interference caused by a neighbouring child with autism.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to investigate soundproofing options.

On appeal, the landlord argued the LTB failed to consider its limitations under the Human Rights Code regarding the child's disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the LTB's order to investigate soundproofing did not require an impermissible eviction or discriminate against the child.