Wendy M. Matheson

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of defence without leave to amend.

The underlying action sought to enforce costs awards against the appellants.

The Associate Justice struck the defence after finding the appellants had flouted multiple peremptory court orders and a 'last chance' order regarding discovery and case management steps.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion to strike the pleading due to contumelious disregard for court orders.

The self-represented moving party requested a short adjournment of his motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal due to technical challenges, illness, and the need to cross-examine a responding witness.

The Ontario Land Tribunal and the City of Toronto took no position, while the respondent developer opposed the request.

The court granted the adjournment on peremptory terms, setting a schedule for cross-examination and the filing of materials.

The appellant, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, appealed an interlocutory order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal requiring him to produce the personal and corporate tax records of his housekeeper.

The insurer sought the records to determine if the housekeeper suffered an economic loss.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not premature because the order was fatally flawed.

The Adjudicator erred in law by finding without evidence that the housekeeper was the appellant's spouse, by requiring evidence of economic loss when the appellant claimed the services were provided in the ordinary course of the housekeeper's employment, and by ordering production of third-party records outside the appellant's control.

The appeal was granted and the production order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision that certified a union and dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration.

The applicant had filed its response to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit via courier, but the OLRB rejected it for failing to comply with a COVID-19 'Notice to Community' requiring electronic filing, despite the OLRB's own forms and rules permitting courier delivery.

The Divisional Court found a breach of procedural fairness, quashed the OLRB's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Board to be decided on its merits.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ordering the College to register the respondent as a psychological associate.

The respondent had completed an online master's degree, which the College's Registration Committee found did not meet the resident study requirement and was not substantially similar.

The Board found the Committee acted improperly by not following the Board's prior recommendation that the program was substantially similar.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the Board's recommendation and that the Board erred in finding an improper exercise of power.

The matter was remitted to a newly constituted panel of the Registration Committee.

The appellant contractor appealed a summary judgment decision enforcing a stipulated remedy in a mediated settlement agreement.

The settlement required the appellant to remediate construction deficiencies by a deadline, failing which $30,000 held in court would be forfeited to the respondent.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to remediate the deficiencies and declined to grant relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's characterization of the clause as a forfeiture rather than a penalty, nor in her conclusion that enforcing the forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outlines were provided.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding arising from a data breach involving the respondents and Cambridge Analytica.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that there was no evidence that Canadian users' data had actually been shared with Cambridge Analytica, failing the common issues requirement under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the certification test, did not require the appellant to prove loss at the certification stage, and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of the evidence or interpretation of the carriage orders.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to deny them the right to rent space for a Hallowe'en-themed event due to alleged harassment of staff.

The Board raised a preliminary issue that the decision was a private contractual matter and not subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the decision to not enter into a short-term rental agreement was an exercise of private law discretion, not a statutory power of decision or a matter of sufficient public character.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and a subsequent costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the responding party plaintiff.

The statutory third party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J. Ramsay J. dated December 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the appellant to schedule a case conference.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant, a member of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, sought judicial review to quash the appointment of investigators who were investigating her failure to pay legal costs to the College.

The applicant argued the College lacked jurisdiction as inability to pay cannot constitute professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative processes should run their full course before judicial intervention.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision terminating his duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

The applicant alleged the union failed to assist him with WSIB claims and a constructive dismissal dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the duty of fair representation does not extend to WSIB matters and the applicant had not sought the union's assistance regarding his termination.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness or Charter rights.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing its cross-motion for production of financial documents.

The court first determined that the underlying order was interlocutory, not final, as it arose from a discovery motion and did not finally determine substantive rights.

Consequently, the appeal lay to a single judge of the Superior Court rather than the Divisional Court.

Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found that the justice of the case warranted granting the extension, noting the moving party's bona fide intention to appeal and the lack of significant prejudice to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Taylor J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that the interlocutory decision does not preclude any party from seeking relief on any issues in the case pursuant to Rules 20 and 21.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The defendants and plaintiffs both brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding the admissibility of evidence in a civil contempt proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on four issues concerning the application of sections 7 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to evidence compelled pursuant to a Mareva order and undertakings.

The court directed that the defendant be the appellant and the plaintiffs be the cross-appellants.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued that the notice of termination was invalid because it was signed by the landlord's property manager, and that section 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires an agent to be licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's interpretation that the Act does not define 'agent' and does not require an agent signing a notice of termination to be licensed to provide legal services.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for rent arrears.

At the hearing, the tenant sought to raise maintenance issues under s. 82(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act but provided only four days' notice instead of the required five.

The tenant argued that because the fifth day prior to the hearing fell on a Sunday, the time to serve notice was extended to Monday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the holiday extension rule did not apply because the notice requirement was to serve 'at least' five days prior, meaning nothing expired on the Sunday.

The Board's discretionary refusal to hear the issues was upheld.