Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions.

The respondents requested that the motions be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the scheduling decision, finding it was moot and sought unavailable relief.

However, the court declined to dismiss the motion for leave to appeal the decision denying leave to examine witnesses, as the primary relief sought was not challenged under the Rule 2.1 process.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlord's son's occupation.

The tenant challenged the LTB's findings on good faith, monetary calculations, the adjudicator's failure to question the landlord, and the adjudicators' credentials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's challenges to the good faith finding did not raise an error of law.

The court also found no legal error in the monetary calculations or the adjudicator's conduct, and held that the tenant failed to rebut the presumption of the adjudicators' competence and impartiality.

The eviction was postponed to September 30, 2023.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an associate justice's costs orders and an order dismissing a motion to increase the pre-judgment interest rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and noted that leave to appeal the pre-judgment interest order was not required.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.

The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.

The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal two Small Claims Court decisions that vacated writs of seizure and sale, alleging the respondent relied on fraudulent debt settlement agreements with forged signatures.

At the hearing, the respondent conceded that the moving parties could bring a motion in Small Claims Court to set aside the orders for fraud under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and agreed not to raise delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, directing the parties to proceed with motions in the Small Claims Court where the conflicting evidence could be better adjudicated.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief of Police dismissing her complaint against certain police officers as unsubstantiated, based on an investigative report.

Before the independent review of the decision could be completed, the subject officers resigned, causing the review to be halted pursuant to section 90 of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the complaint process is held in abeyance for five years and could resume if the officers are re-employed.

The court also held that statutory secrecy provisions prevent the investigative report from being used against the applicant in other civil proceedings.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he had not suffered a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in her treatment of expert evidence, violated procedural fairness by questioning an expert, misapplied the temporal requirements for assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and used an overly restrictive causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as the adjudicator properly applied a flexible approach to the timing of assessments and correctly considered impairments caused by the traumatic brain injury.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review to challenge the quantum of a costs order made against it on a jurisdiction motion.

The applicant had previously appealed the jurisdiction decision to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and rejected allegations of bias against the motion judge.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant failed to pursue its statutory right to seek leave to appeal the costs order and was attempting to re-litigate bias allegations already decided by the Court of Appeal.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision finding her three children in need of protection and placing them in extended Society care.

The trial judge also reduced the mother's access from weekly to bi-monthly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the protection finding and disposition, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risks and the mother's plan.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to give full effect to section 17 of the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, which requires promoting ties to family for Indigenous children.

The access issue was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario denying him access to his son's personal health information held by a family services agency.

The applicant argued he was entitled to the records under the Divorce Act and various privacy statutes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decisions to be reasonable.

The court upheld the adjudicator's findings that the Divorce Act did not mandate disclosure and that the agency properly exercised its discretion in considering the best interests of the child and the applicant's motives.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Shore J. dated March 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

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

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specific paragraphs of the orders dated June 27, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

Costs of the motions were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its certification application.

The OLRB had determined that the respondent's work of relining existing sewer pipes using cured-in-place-pipe was maintenance work, not construction work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OLRB's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its application of its own jurisprudence were internally coherent, rational, and entitled to deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Tribunal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, resulting in the revocation of his licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its credibility assessments, misapplied the concept of incremental disclosure, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's detailed and nuanced credibility findings, which preferred the patient's evidence over the appellant's.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of pay for personal leave days taken by a locomotive engineer under the Canada Labour Code.

The arbitrator found that because the collective agreement did not specifically provide a method for calculating personal leave pay, the default calculation under s. 17(a) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations applied, rather than the 'basic day' rate argued by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation and the collective agreement was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of ensuring employees do not suffer a wage loss when taking personal leave.

The appellant insurer appealed a preliminary issue decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding whether the respondent's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The LAT intervened to raise a preliminary issue regarding the Divisional Court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, confirming that appeals lie only from final decisions of the LAT to prevent fragmentation and delay.

The court also declined the parties' joint request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion to strike out parts of an affidavit filed by the applicants in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the vires of O. Reg. 382/19.

The moving party argued the affidavit contained inadmissible legal argument, opinion, and irrelevant evidence that did not fall within the narrow exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The court adopted a hybrid approach, striking out paragraphs containing clear legal argument and opinion, while adjourning the balance of the motion to the panel hearing the application on its merits.

Counsel for the corporate applicants brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record in an application for judicial review.

The applicants did not respond to the motion or attend the case conference.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the applicants or respondents, and ordered the applicants to address proper representation under Rule 15.01(2) within 30 days, failing which the application may be dismissed.