Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant, an unqualified teacher who taught part-time credit courses between 1980 and 1989, sought retroactive pension credits from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed his application, finding he required a Letter of Permission (LOP) for each year of service to be eligible for credits, and that he failed to prove he had been granted any LOPs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the LOP requirement, the burden of proof, and the pension board's fiduciary duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory requirements, properly placed the onus of proof on the appellant, and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual findings regarding the absence of LOPs and the board's conduct.

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

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

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction.

The Board found that the tenant substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment by repeatedly refusing entry to real estate agents, engaging in abusive behaviour, and sending threatening emails.

The tenant argued the Board erred by basing the eviction solely on his refusal to allow photographs of the unit and alleged bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant could not raise new issues not presented to the Board, the eviction was based on a broader pattern of conduct, and there was no evidence of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against two physicians.

The complaints arose after the physicians reported the applicant to the Ministry of Transportation for a potential visual impairment, resulting in a temporary suspension of his driver's licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the HPARB's decisions were reasonable and that the physicians had complied with their mandatory reporting obligations under the Highway Traffic Act.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board settlement order and a subsequent review order, arguing procedural unfairness because a term allowing eviction without notice under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act was included without their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the time period for the s. 78 term had expired without the landlord relying on it.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal were not moot, it would be dismissed because the Board has statutory discretion to include fair conditions in its orders, and the tenant raised no error of law.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) for a self-employed lawyer injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator erred in law by applying section 4(2)3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which applies to employed persons, rather than section 4(3), which applies to self-employed persons.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 12, 2022.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring the production of a witness statement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion reserved to the panel hearing the appeal and fixed at $3,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated August 19, 2022.

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

The applicant Health Unit sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that found it breached the collective agreement by offering straight-time payouts for accumulated comp time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Health Unit argued the breach was authorized by the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and O. Reg. 116/20.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review for interpreting the emergency order was correctness.

Although the court found the arbitration board erred in concluding the Act did not permit orders with financial consequences, it upheld the board's factual finding that the specific measure taken was not 'reasonably necessary' to respond to the outbreak.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him statutory accident benefits after he fell from the roof of his camper trailer while cleaning it.

The Adjudicator had found the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' because there was no evidence the appellant tripped on the trailer or that the trailer directly caused the fall.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by requiring direct physical contact with the vehicle to establish causation.

The court found that falling from the trailer while inspecting it was a normal incident of the risk created by its use, satisfying the definition of an accident under the Schedule.

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating a tenancy but denying jurisdiction to award compensation under an L3 application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to award compensation on an L3 application, which is strictly for termination.

However, the Court found a breach of procedural fairness because the LTB member determined the termination date without allowing the landlord to make submissions on that issue.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the specific termination date, while the jurisdiction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Capital Sports Management Inc., appealed a motion judge's order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents to the respondent, Trinity Development Group Inc. The motion judge had found an implied joint retainer of the law firm Gowlings by both parties in relation to a joint venture, and ordered production of documents up to the commencement of the litigation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the implied joint retainer terminated in May 2016 when the parties became materially adverse and threatened litigation against each other.

Furthermore, the respondent had acquiesced to Gowlings continuing to act solely for the appellant after that date.

The appeal was allowed, and the production order was narrowed to exclude documents created after May 2016.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that upheld findings of professional misconduct relating to five separate client matters over a five-year period.

The misconduct included breaching a Small Claims Court production order, failing to serve a client, breaching confidentiality by sending a termination letter containing legal advice to a client's psychiatrist, delaying the deposit of trust funds, misleading the court about an unpaid costs order, and improperly proposing a mutual withdrawal of Law Society complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law in the Appeal Panel's decision, and upheld the costs award against the appellant.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse for exposing his genitals to a minor, resulting in the revocation of his certificate.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its credibility assessments, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the minor's evidence and the lack of explicit findings on the appellant's credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's reasons, read contextually, adequately explained its rejection of the appellant's denial and correctly applied the law regarding child witness credibility and inconsistencies.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Myers.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.