Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant subcontractor appealed a decision removing its construction lien and dismissing the action against the property owner.

The motions judge found the lien was not filed within the time required under the Construction Lien Act, as the late delivery of screens was deemed a trivial act intended solely to extend the lien period.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact, concluding the motions judge properly applied the law regarding whether remaining work was trivial or done in good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order changing her indefinite spousal support to a three-year step-down order.

She argued the motions judge erred by failing to consider pre-marriage cohabitation and by terminating an indefinite order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the cohabitation issue was not properly raised before the motions judge and that the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines permit the termination of indefinite support where the recipient has had an opportunity to become self-supporting.

The step-down order was upheld.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to stay the action pending the disposition of a separate oppression application involving the respondent's shareholders.

The oppression application included orders prohibiting the respondent from settling the current action.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and stayed the action, finding that the inability to settle the action severely undermined the respondent's authority to pursue it and prejudiced the appellants.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's assessment of conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's corporate control.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that reduced the penalty imposed on two firefighters for off-duty impaired driving convictions.

The firefighters had lost their driver's licenses and were demoted for one year by the City.

The arbitrator substituted a two-day suspension, finding the demotions were disciplinary and the firefighters could still perform their core duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's exercise of discretion to substitute the penalty was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The appeal raised an important issue regarding the jurisdiction of a Discipline Committee over a member's prior conduct.

As the respondents did not participate, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal and granted leave under Rule 13.03 to request Pro Bono Law Ontario to appoint amicus curiae to assist the court.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of commercial benchmarking data provided to the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misapprehended evidence and applied too high a standard of proof for the third-party records exemption under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm to its competitive position if the redacted information was disclosed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's appeal decision regarding a catastrophic impairment determination under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Delegate had overturned an arbitrator's finding that combining impairment ratings for a physical brain injury and a separate psychological disorder constituted impermissible 'double counting'.

The Delegate also remitted the issue of medication impairment back to arbitration and upheld a 4% rating for scarring.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's interpretation of the AMA Guides and the Schedule fell within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of an unredacted forensic investigation report.

The Commissioner found that the report contained personal information exempt from disclosure under s. 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but ordered full disclosure based on the public interest override in s. 16.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the Commissioner's failure to identify the specific personal information exempted under s. 14 made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the s. 16 balancing analysis.

The applicant, a daycare teacher, sought judicial review of decisions by the respondent children's aid society verifying an allegation of risk of sexual harm against him.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent's investigation was fundamentally flawed, superficial, and failed to follow mandatory investigative steps, such as interviewing key witnesses and examining the physical layout of the daycare.

The court quashed the respondent's decisions, finding them unreasonable, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's dismissal of its motion to strike an application brought by a convicted offender seeking post-conviction disclosure of police records.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge's one-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient reasons regarding the plain and obvious test, standing, and prematurity, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was granted, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different judge of the Superior Court for a fresh hearing.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their limitation period defence in a dispute over a 2009 condominium purchase.

The respondent commenced the action in 2015 after being denied use of a second parking spot in 2013.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to apply the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove they did not know of the claim.

The appeal was granted and the limitation issue was remitted back to the Small Claims Court to be decided at trial.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a work jurisdiction dispute over exterior concrete formwork at a hospital construction project.

The Board had upheld the employer's assignment of the work to a composite crew of Carpenters and Labourers, finding that the Labourers' collective agreement did not explicitly claim the disputed work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that the Board was not bound to follow its prior decisions where the circumstances or arguments differed.

The applicant, a medical school graduate, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Examiners requiring him to undergo remediation for a lapse in professionalism.

The applicant had initiated an internal appeal but abandoned it, choosing instead to complete the remediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his internal appeal remedies and demonstrated no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the administrative process.

The appellant landlord appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to return the balance of the respondent tenant's security deposit.

The motions judge had found that the landlord was barred from claiming Additional Rent adjustments for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 lease years because it failed to provide notice within 180 days of its financial year end, as required by the lease.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's interpretation of the lease, finding it consistent with the language and the six-month limitation on tenants seeking readjustment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders arising from summary judgment motions, while also commencing appeals in the Court of Appeal.

Noting potential jurisdictional issues regarding whether the underlying orders were final or interlocutory, the Divisional Court adjourned the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the parties to provide supplementary written submissions on the jurisdictional question.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

The plaintiff and defendant engaged in a joint venture to purchase, demolish, rebuild, and sell two residential properties.

Following the sale of the second property, the parties disputed the division of the net proceeds, which were paid into court.

Due to poor record-keeping and extensive cash payments, the court had to determine the total cost of construction and the respective financial advances made by each party.

The court calculated the net outstanding advances owed to each party and ordered that these amounts be paid out before the remaining funds are split 65/35 in accordance with their agreement.

The appellant landlord brought a motion to vary a single judge's order that had dismissed her four ongoing proceedings against the respondent tenants.

The single judge had dismissed the proceedings because the appellant was absent, her husband was unauthorized to act as her agent, and the proceedings were improperly perfected.

On the motion to vary, the appellant was represented by counsel, curing the representation defect.

The Divisional Court granted the motion in part, permitting the statutory appeal to continue while dismissing the other duplicative proceedings.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the motion appealed from and the related motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs for the leave motion because the judge granting leave did not address costs in their order or reasons.

However, the court awarded the appellant costs of $12,500 for the attendance before the motion judge, finding it fair and reasonable that costs follow the event in the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that she was an independent contractor rather than a dependent contractor.

The appellant conceded the trial judge used the correct legal test from McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., but argued he erred in its application.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly considered the factors of economic dependency, exclusivity, and permanency, and that his findings were open to him on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.