Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

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

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

The moving party 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 to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.

The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.

The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.

The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.

The applicants, a group of cottage owners, sought judicial review of a work permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to the respondents for the construction of a dock and walkway on a property that was the site of a former mine.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and breached their procedural fairness rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the MNRF's decision was reasonable as it relied on expert environmental assessments from other ministries and attached appropriate mitigation conditions.

The court also held that the MNRF met its procedural fairness obligations, noting that formal reasons were not required for a building permit application.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) applied for judicial review of a Coroner's preliminary ruling in an inquest into a fatal helicopter crash.

The Coroner had ordered the disclosure of certain aggregate and specific information about witness statements obtained during the TSB's investigation.

The TSB argued this information was protected by the statutory privilege in s. 30 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTSA).

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Coroner's decision unreasonable as it conflicted with the broad statutory privilege and the mandatory procedure for disclosure under s. 30(5) of the CTSA.

The applicants, police officers who took leaves of absence to serve as executives on the Ontario Provincial Police Association, sought an interim stay of a misconduct hearing pending their application for judicial review.

They argued the Adjudicator erred in finding they were still 'police officers' subject to discipline under the Police Services Act while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the misconduct proceedings to continue without further delay.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in ordering that the joint retainer of the accountant continue, and whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents under the retainer agreement.

Leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay, arguing the appeal was devoid of merit and an abuse of process due to unpaid rent.

The court found the appeal raised a procedural fairness issue, which constitutes a question of law, and was not manifestly devoid of merit.

Noting the tenant's partial payments and completion of appeal materials, the court declined to quash the appeal or lift the stay, but imposed strict terms requiring the tenant to pay ongoing rent plus $700 monthly towards arrears.

The tenant brought a motion for interim relief pending his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenant had been evicted based on the landlord's claim that her son required the unit, but the tenant presented new evidence suggesting the unit was re-rented to a non-family member.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and the Board's jurisdiction.

Balancing the factors, the court granted an interim order prohibiting the landlord from re-renting or changing the current use of the premises by family members until the appeal is heard, and expedited the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff and recertify a class proceeding.

The motion judge had previously decertified the action after the original representative plaintiff was found unsuitable and class counsel failed to find a replacement within the allotted 60 days.

Almost two years later, class counsel brought a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to relitigation and raised concerns about the lack of a costs indemnity agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the abuse of process doctrine or his factual findings.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for water damage allegedly caused by the respondent's window installation.

The Deputy Judge found the appellant failed to prove causation or damages, and alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no reviewable error in the Deputy Judge's discretionary award of double costs following an offer to settle.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) regarding a lot severance and zoning variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that most of the proposed issues were questions of mixed fact and law.

The one potential question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act did not raise good reason to doubt the correctness of the TLAB's decision.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent property owner, but no costs were awarded to the TLAB, which had unnecessarily participated in the motion contrary to a case management direction.

The applicant hotel suffered a fire that caused significant damage, leading to its closure and the layoff of its employees.

The respondent union grieved the employer's failure to pay termination pay.

The arbitrator found the employees were entitled to termination pay, rejecting the employer's argument that the employment contracts were frustrated under s. 2(1.4) of Ontario Regulation 288/01, because the employer always intended to reopen the hotel.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrator reasonably applied the test for frustration of contract and reasonably concluded that the temporary break in operations did not render the contracts radically different.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by breaching a condition prohibiting him from dispensing to or interacting with minors unsupervised.

The Divisional Court found the Committee interpreted the condition over-broadly and made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding three of the four alleged breaches.

The appeal was allowed in part, three findings of misconduct were set aside, and the penalty and costs orders were remitted to the Committee for redetermination.

The College's cross-appeal seeking revocation of the appellant's certificate was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reduced the current value assessments of several commercial properties.

MPAC argued the Board made legal errors by presuming the properties' current use was their highest and best use, by requiring annual determinations of highest and best use, and by failing to follow previous Board precedent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Court held that the presumption of current use merely reflects MPAC's statutory burden of proof, that annual assessments correctly account for changes in a property's state or condition, and that the Board is not strictly bound by its own prior decisions.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to be added as a responding party to an application for judicial review and for an order sealing a portion of the record.

The underlying application challenged an HPARB decision confirming a college committee's decision to take no further action on a complaint against a chiropractor.

The court granted the motion to add HPARB as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect the respondent's college history, continuing a prior disclosure order made by HPARB.

The moving party tenant sought to vary a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The tenant had appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction and arrears order but repeatedly failed to deliver his appeal materials despite multiple extensions of time.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the case management judge's discretionary decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the tenant's repeated failure to meet court-ordered schedules.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.