Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The appellant brought a motion for interim relief pending her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found she was not a tenant and dismissed her wrongful lockout application.

She sought an order permitting her to live in the rental unit pending the appeal or a stay preventing the landlord from re-renting the unit.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but denied interim possession due to the balance of convenience.

However, the court granted a stay prohibiting the landlord from re-renting the premises pending the expedited appeal.

The appellant was struck by a car while riding his bicycle and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the application.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a video of the accident, permitting the respondent's expert to testify beyond the scope of his report, and refusing to allow the appellant to call reply evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a police service's decision to disclose non-conviction information on a vulnerable sector check.

The applicant argued the reconsideration process was procedurally unfair because the police did not disclose the underlying information relied upon to make the decision, preventing the applicant from knowing the case to meet.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that procedural fairness required the police to provide access to the relevant information before the applicant submitted written submissions for the reconsideration.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for a new reconsideration by a different decision-maker.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under s. 3.1(1) 2. iii of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant suffered a severe and permanent alteration of the structure of her leg, but her functional mobility impairment (measured by the SCIM) was only temporary.

The Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's interpretation that the SABS requires both the structural and functional alterations to be permanent to meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB order was made on consent, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears.

The tenant appealed, arguing procedural fairness issues regarding notice to other alleged tenants, and obtained an automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was an abuse of process designed to delay eviction while rent remained unpaid.

The court also noted the tenant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated October 16, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. dated September 3, 2021.

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

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Pinto J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The self-represented appellant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed her application for failure to appear and denied her request for reconsideration.

The appellant had missed the start of a telephone hearing due to a scheduling mistake and childcare duties, but attempted to join and emailed the tribunal within the scheduled hearing time.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant provided a sufficient explanation for her delay and that the HRTO's refusal to reconsider the dismissal was unreasonable.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new hearing date.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the College's Complaints Committee.

The Committee had investigated a patient's complaint regarding inappropriate physical contact and, while unable to determine exactly what occurred, required the physician to be cautioned and complete a remedial program regarding boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate for a screening function and the decision was reasonable based on the physician's own admissions about accepting hugs.

The Court also rejected the argument that publishing a summary of the decision on the public register constituted an unauthorized sanction.

The appellant tenant sought an adjournment of an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision because their counsel failed to file the required appeal materials.

The respondent landlord objected, noting the tenant was in arrears of rent and hydro.

The Divisional Court granted a short adjournment to prevent prejudice to the client, on strict conditions that the appellant pay all arrears and file materials by a specified date, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The appellant had repeatedly breached undertakings restricting him from performing dental implant therapy, resulting in harm to at least one patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was ungovernable and that revocation was the only appropriate penalty.

The Court also rejected arguments that the Committee's reasons were insufficient or based on irrelevant considerations.

The plaintiffs moved for an order staying or adjourning the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a case management judge's decision on a Rule 21 motion.

The Rule 21 motion was heard together with the first stage of a bifurcated certification motion in a proposed class proceeding arising from a mass shooting.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and granted the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured postponing the leave motion until after the second stage of the certification motion was decided to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee five months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent was terminated without cause after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in considering the respondent's pregnancy as a factor under the Bardal framework when determining the reasonable notice period, nor did the motion judge err in the costs award.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to declare a municipal election invalid.

They argued the removal of 1,131 names from the preliminary voters' list constituted an irregularity under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to adduce evidence that any voters were disenfranchised or that the presiding justice erred in concluding no irregularity occurred.

The moving party, a subcontractor, brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an Associate Justice's report arising from a 24-day consolidated construction lien trial.

The subcontractor argued that the Associate Justice erred in finding that the general contractor did not breach the payment terms, that the termination of the contract was justified, and that the general contractor did not breach the duty of good faith.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact or mixed fact and law in the Associate Justice's findings.

The motion to oppose confirmation was denied and the report was confirmed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Parole Board decision suspending her parole and issuing a Canada-wide arrest warrant.

The applicant had continued to report to her parole officer for months after the suspension, unaware of the warrant, and was even told she had successfully completed her sentence.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention despite the usual requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court held that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to effectively notify the applicant's parole officers of the suspension, and quashed the decision and related warrants.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.