Wendy M. Matheson

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related foot injury, argued that his employer discriminated against him by applying its absenteeism policy and failing to accommodate him.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review is reasonableness and found that the HRTO reasonably concluded the employer's application of its policies was not discriminatory, as the employer was entitled to rely on the WSIB's finding that the injury did not prevent the applicant from working.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a former audit partner, sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Committee of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, which upheld a finding of professional misconduct against him.

The misconduct related to his failure to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence regarding assets held by a service organization involved in the Madoff fraud.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the disciplinary committees reasonably applied the codified auditing standards (U.S. GAAS) and did not reverse the onus of proof or apply an incorrect standard of practice.

The Cooperators General Insurance Company appealed a preliminary decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) finding that the claimant was a 'dependant' and thus an insured under the policy.

The claimant argued the appeal was premature as the hearing on the merits was scheduled for a later date.

The Divisional Court agreed, dismissing the appeal as premature to avoid fragmented administrative proceedings and inefficiency.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of J. Steele J. dated July 7, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Chalmers J. dated June 28, 2021, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out her complaint against three police officers.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to lay additional charges against an individual and treated her with disrespect based on her gender and ethnicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness during the screening process.

The court held that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers' exercise of discretion did not constitute misconduct and that there was no evidence of bias or differential treatment.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court noted that while the motion judge made final determinations regarding two defences, the formal order was interlocutory as it simply dismissed the summary judgment motion.

Finding that the moving party failed to meet the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order, the court dismissed the motion.

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 of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated May 10, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pierce J. dated May 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Somji J. dated April 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated December 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding Rule 20 summary judgment motions and a class action certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with respect to the Rule 20 motions and the certification criteria under section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Costs of the leave motions were fixed at $2,500 to the successful party on the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to extend the time to seek leave to appeal a security for costs order that resulted in his answer being struck out.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, finding the moving party had the requisite intention to appeal and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit given the severe consequences of the underlying orders.

Leave to appeal was granted, and the underlying orders were stayed pending the disposition of the appeal.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy at a retirement residence for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex through abusive behaviour towards staff and residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB's application of the substantial interference test.

The Court also rejected arguments that the LTB hearing was procedurally unfair or that the LTB failed to properly consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when ordering the eviction.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Gibson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

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

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.