Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld the Hearing Division's finding that she knowingly participated in mortgage fraud in six real estate transactions and revoked her licence.

The appellant argued the Hearing Division lacked jurisdiction to render a decision with only two members, improperly relied on an expert report, and unreasonably found she had the requisite intent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the two remaining members to complete the hearing, the expert report was properly used to understand red flags of fraud, and the finding of knowing participation in fraud was reasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application for an assessment of their former lawyer's accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The parties had previously settled a related action and signed a mutual release.

The appellants argued the release was void under s. 22 of the Solicitors Act and that special circumstances existed to justify an assessment more than 12 months after the accounts were rendered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 22 does not prevent a client from settling litigation with their lawyer, and that the application judge made no error in principle in finding no special circumstances.

The appellant First Nation appealed a costs decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the 'polluter pays' principle and by not considering the appellant's First Nation status when assessing whether the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, costs are only awarded for unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct.

The Court found that the 'polluter pays' principle does not apply to costs considerations and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the respondent's conduct in defending the appeal was not unreasonable.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of their employment.

They elected to opt out of WSIA benefits to join a class action and subsequently applied for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

After the class action was dismissed, the insurer terminated their SABS, arguing the election was invalid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the election was made in good faith to pursue the class action, not primarily to claim SABS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that the ultimate dismissal of the class action did not retroactively invalidate the good faith of the initial election.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaints against his former employer and union.

The complaints arose after the applicant's employment was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment, which was subsequently resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order to the Divisional Court.

The panel raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the order was made in a proceeding where both parties sought a divorce.

Under section 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act, claims for custody and access are stayed in favour of the Divorce Act when a divorce is claimed.

Because the order was made under the Divorce Act, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court found the father had a meritorious appeal regarding the termination of his access and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant children's aid society appealed a temporary order placing a newborn child in the care of the respondent parents subject to supervision terms.

The society argued the application judge erred by imposing terms irreconcilable with his findings regarding the mother's mental health and the father's prior criminal conviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the test under section 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and made no palpable and overriding error.

The Court also dismissed the society's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the paternal grandfather's criminal record, applying a relaxed test but finding the evidence would not have affected the result.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions dismissing her application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval granted to an adjacent asphalt plant, and refusing to reconsider that dismissal.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the applicant's submissions regarding zoning, noise, and past environmental breaches.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant mother appealed an order directing the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

She argued the sale would prejudice the best interests of her autistic child, who had lived there since birth.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh expert evidence confirming that moving would be a high-level stressor for the child.

Applying the palpable and overriding error standard, the court found the motion judge erred in ordering the sale before the resolution of the Family Law Act claims, as it would defeat the mother's claims for exclusive possession and a vesting order.

The appeal was allowed and the sale orders were set aside.

The Law Society sought judicial review of a disclosure order made by the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division during an interlocutory suspension proceeding.

By the time the judicial review was heard, the Law Society had complied with the disclosure order and the interlocutory suspension had been imposed, rendering the disclosure issue moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issue, finding that the matter should have proceeded through the Tribunal's internal appeal process and that the Tribunal should be allowed time for its jurisprudence to evolve.

The appellant sought judicial review of his removal and arrest from a city bus station for distributing pamphlets, seeking declaratory relief and an order quashing the trespass decision.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief because the Trespass to Property Act does not confer a statutory power of decision.

The court further found the application to quash was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice to be heard as a Charter application.

The appellant teacher appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards public health nurses and students during a school immunization clinic, where he expressed opposition to vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee's findings of misconduct and the imposed penalty, which included a one-month suspension and a two-year prohibition from attending school health clinics, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The tenant appellants appealed an eviction order and a subsequent LTB order denying their request for a review.

The tenants had attended the LTB for their hearing but left during a lunch break because the elevators broke down, and they could not climb 18 flights of stairs due to a disability.

The LTB member dismissed their review request without a hearing, finding they should have telephoned the Board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB denied the tenants natural justice by failing to hold a review hearing to consider their evidence regarding their inability to participate.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a review hearing.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that upheld an eviction order for rental arrears.

The tenant argued that his obligation to pay rent was discharged because the landlord's staff mistakenly refused his attempt to pay the arrears in cash.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the LTB's conclusion that a refused payment does not erase the debt.

The Court also found the LTB's refusal to set aside the eviction order was reasonable given the tenant's stated refusal to comply with any order to pay arrears.

However, the Court granted the tenant a final opportunity to pay the arrears in cash to avoid eviction.

The appellant brought a motion in writing seeking an order to compel the Landlord and Tenant Board to produce transcripts and the record of proceedings for her statutory appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the obligation to order transcripts and prepare the appeal book lies with the appellant, not the tribunal.

The court granted the appellant an extension of 30 days to comply with the Rules and perfect her appeal.

The appellant, a lawyer, retained the respondent law firm for a real estate purchase.

Due to a software error, the respondent failed to collect the Municipal Land Transfer Tax from the appellant before closing, but the tax was automatically withdrawn from the respondent's trust account.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court and won.

On appeal, the appellant argued the action was a nullity because the respondent failed to render an account under s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act before suing for a 'disbursement'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an independent tax obligation is not a disbursement for business done by a solicitor as such under the Act.

The applicants, including several religious physicians and organizations, challenged two policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that require physicians who object to providing certain medical services (such as abortion or medical assistance in dying) on religious or conscientious grounds to provide an 'effective referral' to a non-objecting provider.

The applicants argued these policies infringed their rights to freedom of religion and equality under the Charter.

The Divisional Court held that while the effective referral requirements did infringe the physicians' freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to ensure equitable access to healthcare for patients.

The court dismissed the applications.

The Town of New Tecumseth appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which found that the respondent's proposal to import fill to establish an apple orchard was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the Town's fill by-law.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings on the evidence and its interpretation of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

However, the Court granted the appeal in part to amend the Board's order, allowing the Town an opportunity to provide comments on the required fill management plan before it is finalized.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $9,002.09 in termination pay following a constructive dismissal.

The employee had been temporarily laid off and did not return when recalled, having found new employment.

The trial judge found the employment contract displaced the termination provisions of the Employment Standards Act to the employee's benefit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the employment contract.

The applicant appealed an interlocutory order that lifted a stay on the respondent's motion to change custody and support.

The stay had originally been ordered under s. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to the respondent's non-payment of support arrears and costs.

The respondent consented to the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that lifting the stay without requiring the respondent to pay the outstanding arrears and costs was an error, granted the appeal, and set aside the order lifting the stay.