Wendy M. Matheson

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision denying his application for citizenship in the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).

The MNO brought a motion to quash the application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the MNO is a private, voluntary organization and its membership decisions do not fall within the public law sphere.

Consequently, the decisions are not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) which found their complaints against a police officer unsubstantiated.

The Director had initially found evidence of misconduct and referred the matter for adjudication, but later reopened the investigation and reversed his decision after undisclosed communications with the police service.

The Divisional Court found that these undisclosed communications compromised the independence of the Director and breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the Director's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh investigation by a different investigator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration decision that upheld his termination for fabricating a workplace violence allegation.

The application was brought over two years after the arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two preliminary grounds: the applicant lacked standing to bring the application individually as the union had exclusive representation rights and no exceptional circumstances applied, and the application was barred by unreasonable and unexplained delay.

The appellants appealed a decision granting an oppression application and ordering the production of financial documents to the minority shareholder.

The application judge found that the majority shareholder's refusal to provide financial disclosure and call a shareholders meeting constituted oppressive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the application judge's interchangeable reference to the minority shareholder company and its principal.

The Court upheld the finding that the minority shareholder had a reasonable expectation of ongoing access to financial disclosure, which was violated by the appellants' conduct.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that ordered it to return all tenant deposits for garage door fobs to the respondent landlord based on unjust enrichment, and set off that amount against unpaid monthly fees owed to the appellant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in applying unjust enrichment because the tripartite agreement provided a juristic reason for the appellant to retain the deposits.

The court also corrected an error in the calculation of pre-judgment interest on the unpaid monthly fees, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the appellant.

The self-represented appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding him $3,000 for pain and suffering following a motor vehicle accident.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on temporal causation, deprived him of a fair trial, and erred by failing to determine the statutory threshold impairment issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was appropriate and the damages award was supported by evidence.

Although the trial judge erred in law by refusing to decide the threshold issue on the basis of mootness, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred to warrant a new trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring him to pay spousal support of $1,000 per month.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the nature of their relationship, their finances, and the respondent's income.

The Divisional Court found that while the trial judge made a factual error regarding whether the respondent's children lived with the parties, this did not constitute a palpable and overriding error affecting the non-compensatory support award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, Michael and Victoria Noguera, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998, against Muskoka Condominium Corporation No. 22, alleging oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct.

This arose from a dispute over the Board's approval of structural changes to their units, the requirement for a s. 98 agreement, and restrictions on their use of common elements.

The Condominium brought a cross-application to re-examine the approval process.

The court found the Board's initial approval of the structural changes to be valid, rejecting claims of conflict of interest or lack of quorum.

It determined that the Condominium's subsequent actions, including demanding an overly broad s. 98 agreement and restricting common element use, were oppressive and unfair.

The court ordered the parties to enter into a modified s. 98 agreement, permitted the applicants to use the lakeside path, and awarded them $10,000 in general damages.

The Condominium's cross-application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that post-accident business income from a family pharmacy should be deducted from the applicant's income replacement benefits (IRBs) under s. 7(3)(b) of the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The applicant argued that 'earned' income required active engagement in the business.

The Divisional Court upheld the Director's Delegate's decision as reasonable, agreeing that a contextual interpretation of the SABS focuses on the profit and loss of the business rather than requiring active participation by the self-employed person.

The appellant builder appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that directed Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay the respondent homeowners $300,000 for a defective concrete foundation.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in its procedural rulings and in its assessment of the warranty claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT's decisions were reasonable and based on concessions made by the appellant during the hearing.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to Tarion.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it did not have a valid non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The Deputy Judge found that the invoice signed by the car owner was an acknowledgment of work done, not an acknowledgment of indebtedness as required by s. 7(5) of the Act.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in this factual finding and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a municipal by-law that disbanded the local police force in favour of contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The applicant argued the municipality breached its duty of procedural fairness during the consultation process and that the decision was tainted by bias and bad faith.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing but dismissed the application.

The court held that the municipality's legislative decision required a lower level of procedural fairness, which was met through public meetings, online engagement, and deputations, and found no evidence of bias or bad faith among the municipal councillors.

The appellant employee appealed a summary judgment dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against the respondent employer.

The appellant was terminated without cause after less than six months of employment and claimed he was induced to leave his previous secure job.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the appellant was bound by a clear six-month probation clause in his signed employment offer, which negated any claim of inducement.

The court also found no bad faith, concluding the employer provided a fair opportunity for the appellant to demonstrate his suitability during the probationary period.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that an incident where the respondent was bumped by a car door and subsequently punched in the face constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The parties had agreed to a written preliminary issue hearing based on a specific question.

However, the LAT adjudicator unilaterally restated the issue in the final decision without notifying the parties.

The Divisional Court held that this breached procedural fairness, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to know the case to be met and to present relevant evidence and arguments.

The appeal was allowed, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different adjudicator.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenants, who resided in rent-geared-to-income community housing, had stopped paying rent while disputing a retroactive rent increase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's jurisdiction did not extend to calculating rent-geared-to-income, and that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness during the hearing.

The court ordered vacant possession of the unit.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found him incompetent, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered him to pay costs.

The Committee found the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of practice, engaged in professional misconduct by falsifying patient charts, and lacked insight into his deficiencies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's findings on incompetence, the penalty of revocation, and the costs award were reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing her application for non-earner benefits.

The LAT had found her application void because she failed to elect between non-earner and income replacement benefits before commencing the proceeding, as required by section 35 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the LAT's determination that an election was required and that a dispute could not exist until the insurer had made a decision following that election.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that granted a travel pay benefit to social workers travelling to satellite clinics.

The hospital argued it was denied procedural fairness and that the award was unreasonable due to insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the summary process under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act provided adequate procedural fairness.

The court also held that the arbitrator's reasons, when read with the record, adequately explained the decision to award a compromise benefit based on replication principles, rendering the outcome reasonable.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision finding that its failure to provide compliant notices denying treatment plans under s. 38 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precluded it from relying on the Minor Injury Guideline limits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator reasonably interpreted s. 38(11) to mean that a non-compliant notice requires the insurer to pay for the goods and services in the specific treatment plan without the $3500 limit applying, until a compliant notice is given.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with his complaint against the police.

The OIPRD had screened out the complaint as frivolous under section 60(4) of the Police Services Act, finding no air of reality to the allegations of hacking, being followed, and police corruption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable based on the record before it.