Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of an interlocutory disclosure decision made by the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The applicants sought to review the Tribunal's dismissal of their motion for additional disclosure, which they argued was necessary for their upcoming stay motions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was premature and that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting early intervention in the ongoing administrative proceedings.

The applicant moved to strike out an affidavit delivered by the respondent in response to an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The applicant argued the affidavit did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting a party to supplement the record of proceedings.

The court found that the bulk of the affidavit improperly appended and discussed documents already in the record.

However, the court noted that evidence regarding an unrecorded oral ruling could fall within the exception for procedural defects not apparent on the record.

The court struck the affidavit but granted leave for both parties to deliver new affidavit evidence strictly limited to their recollection of whether an oral ruling was made.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,700.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 24, 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 January 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,000 all inclusive.

The appellant moved for a stay of an ongoing Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding his claim for statutory accident benefits, pending the determination of his application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged an interlocutory LAT decision denying the appellant's request to convert a written hearing into an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the application for judicial review was premature as the LAT proceedings had not yet concluded, and the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify court intervention at this stage.

The appellants appealed a class proceedings judge's refusal to approve $70,000 in honorariums for two representative plaintiffs and three class members from a $10 million class action settlement fund regarding institutional sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court reviewed the jurisprudence on representative plaintiff compensation, confirming that such payments should be rare, modest, and reserved for exceptional circumstances to avoid conflicts of interest.

The court granted the appeal in part, awarding $7,500 to the lead representative plaintiff for her exceptional contribution and exposure to re-traumatization, but dismissed the requests for the co-representative plaintiff and the other class members.

The moving party, a not-for-profit corporation, sought an urgent stay of an application judge's order prescribing the process for determining membership and voting rights for an upcoming annual general meeting, pending an appeal.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, that there was potential for irreparable harm due to the history of disruption at previous meetings, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the expedited appeal date, the court granted the stay.

The appellant tenant, who suffers from a mental health disability, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her due to disruptive and threatening behaviour towards other tenants.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code, failed to consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and denied her procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined that accommodating the tenant caused undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, properly exercised its discretion regarding relief from eviction, and appropriately admitted and weighed hearsay evidence.

The appellant sought to appeal an endorsement directing the registrar to issue a Rule 2.1 notice in the underlying proceedings, as well as a scheduling decision from Civil Practice Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The court held that there is no right to appeal the administrative step of issuing a Rule 2.1 notice before a final decision is made, and the scheduling decision was an interlocutory order for which leave to appeal had not been sought.

The appellant, a self-represented tenant living in a commercial unit, sought an interim stay of a writ of possession pending her appeal of the application judge's decision.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously determined the tenancy was commercial, not residential.

The respondent landlord faced municipal fines for zoning violations due to the appellant's residential use of the commercial property.

The Divisional Court found the appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but granted a brief extension of the stay until April 21, 2023, to allow the appellant more time to vacate, balancing her personal circumstances against the landlord's need for compliance.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord to demolish the rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board erred in finding the landlord took all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary demolition permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding was one of fact or mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the court found the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in determining that only the demolition permit, not a building permit, was relevant, and that vacant possession was required to obtain it.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her request to convert a scheduled videoconference hearing into a written hearing due to her psychological condition.

When the appellant's counsel declined to proceed without instructions, the adjudicator dismissed the application for statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias, denial of natural justice, or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of the hearing or her subsequent written and reconsideration decisions.

The appellant buyer appealed a decision dismissing its motion for production of the respondent sellers' lawyer's file.

The appellant argued that the respondents impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied on legal advice in good faith when exercising a solicitor approval clause to terminate a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a denial of bad faith and an assertion of good faith reliance on legal advice does not amount to an implied waiver of privilege.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the solicitor approval clause.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to pay damages for an illegal eviction.

They argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the tenant shared a kitchen or bathroom with the owner under s. 5(i).

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the exemption does not apply when the owner is a corporation, as a corporation cannot 'live' in the premises or share facilities in the manner contemplated by the Act.

The court also dismissed the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, upholding the corrected damages award of $14,620.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated August 31, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 2, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 8, 2022.

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, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed an Assessment Review Board decision classifying its property as Multi-Residential rather than Residential.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by focusing exclusively on the physical layout of the suites rather than the occupancy arrangements to determine if they were 'self-contained units'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly considered both the physical layout and the occupancy arrangements, and that the Board's application of these factors was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appellate review.