Wendy M. Matheson

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed limestone quarry.

The appellants argued the OMB breached procedural fairness during a partial re-hearing and misapprehended evidence regarding at-risk turtles and noise levels.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the appellants had consented to the re-hearing process and that the OMB's evidentiary findings were reasonable.

However, the Court granted the appeal on one issue, finding the OMB erred in law by proposing noise mitigation measures that might require access to private lands without evidence of feasibility, and remitted that issue to the OMB.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination against his former employer.

The applicant alleged that his termination at age 46 was discriminatory and that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in its findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no errors of law and holding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the applicant's performance and the employer's business reasons for termination were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitral award which concluded that physician assistants fell within the scope of the paramedical bargaining unit under the collective agreement.

The hospital argued the arbitrator exceeded his mandate and applied an overly broad definition of 'paramedical'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, grounded in the ordinary meaning of the word, the parties' practice, and labour jurisprudence, and did not improperly sweep in other excluded employee groups.

The appellant mother appealed a final order dismissing her application to relocate her daughter to Ottawa and transferring primary care to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motions judge made errors of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, including misapprehending the requirement for consent to relocate and failing to adequately analyze the child's best interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The motions judge correctly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, properly considered the mother's past conduct regarding communication, and reasonably concluded that transferring primary care to the father, who offered to relocate to Kingston to minimize disruption, was in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Tribunal denying his request to retroactively purchase membership in his employer's pension plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily because the applicant failed to exhaust his statutory right of appeal under the Pension Benefits Act and no special circumstances justified bypassing that route.

The Court also found that the application would fail on the merits, as the Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence and its discretionary decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to sell his interest in a jointly owned property to the respondent.

The parties had previously been ordered to list the property for sale, but the appellant repeatedly frustrated the sale process, including refusing to close after making the highest bid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's order was not a forced sale under the Partition Act, but rather a necessary step to implement and enforce a previous unappealed order for sale.

The applicant municipality brought an application for a declaration that the respondent Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate its Election Compliance Audit Committee and Property Standards Committee for alleged violations of open meeting requirements.

The Divisional Court held that neither committee falls within the definition of a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, as they are independent adjudicative bodies whose purposes are inconsistent with a municipality's power to dissolve a local board.

The Court granted a declaration that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate these committees, but declined to grant a broader declaration regarding all quasi-judicial tribunals or to quash the Ombudsman's non-binding report.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed a final order of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that increased the annual pole attachment charge payable to Hydro One Networks Inc. The appellants argued that the OEB breached procedural fairness by expanding the scope of their review and vary motion to include new evidence and issues, and erred in law by refusing to order production of a pole sharing agreement between Hydro One and Bell Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB conducted the hearing fairly by granting the appellants' request for a hearing de novo and allowing all parties to present updated evidence.

The Court also held that the OEB's refusal to order production of the actual agreement, while requiring disclosure of its relevant financial impacts, was within its procedural jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice.

The applicants, owners of a designated heritage property, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind farm project.

The applicants argued the Director failed to properly interpret the REA Regulation regarding cultural heritage and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness, the Director's decision to issue the REA was reasonable and balanced the statutory priorities, and the comprehensive procedural code in the REA Regulation fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness.

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's order refusing to confirm an Assessment Officer's Report and Certificate regarding the respondent solicitor's accounts.

The solicitor had abandoned the assessment hearing after his adjournment request was denied.

The Assessment Officer reduced the accounts from over $1 million to $325,789.01.

The motion judge refused to confirm the report, finding the Assessment Officer's reasons inadequate and imposing an evidentiary burden on the client.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by reversing the onus of proof, which rests entirely on the solicitor to prove the reasonableness of his fees.

Given the solicitor's failure to adduce any evidence, the Assessment Officer's reasons were adequate.

The appellant appealed a 40-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal for selling alcohol to intoxicated patrons and permitting drunkenness, following two separate incidents where patrons left the establishment and were later found suffering from hypothermia (one fatally).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, no procedural unfairness from an incomplete recording of the hearing, and no error in principle regarding the sanction imposed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee denying him standing under the Drainage Act to appeal a drainage works report.

The appellant argued he had standing as the spouse of the registered owner of the affected property and as a resident who paid bills.

The Divisional Court upheld the Referee's decision, finding it reasonable that the Family Law Act did not confer an ownership interest for the purposes of the Drainage Act, and that residing in the home did not make the appellant an 'owner'.

The court also dismissed arguments related to the Protection of Public Participation Act and a request for a stay, ultimately dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his motion to quash disciplinary charges.

The charges arose from a complaint that the College failed to process according to the mandatory statutory requirements under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead of following the complaint process, the College invited the complainant to withdraw her complaint in favour of a Registrar's investigation under s. 75(1)(a).

The Divisional Court held that the College's failure to strictly comply with the statutory complaint procedures deprived it of jurisdiction to refer the matter to discipline.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the College was prohibited from prosecuting the charges.

The appellant brought a motion to expedite his appeal of an order dismissing his application for the production of corporate records.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to stay the appeal pending the outcome of a related trial appeal.

The court found that the appellant's grounds for expediting the appeal, including seeking documents to potentially argue for a different valuation date, were unpersuasive and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found the respondents' grounds for a stay insufficient.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order declaring that the parties had not settled the underlying action for non-payment of furnace equipment.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds regarding the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis for the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the parties had not agreed on a material term regarding the timing of payment and receipt of documents.

The court also found the Deputy Judge's brief reasons were adequate for the Small Claims Court context.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against the respondents for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant had sued for damages related to extra expenses and lost income after failing his truck driving test multiple times, disputing specific instructions in the Ministry of Transportation Truck Handbook.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no error of law in concluding the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, even when read generously.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, which found he sexually abused a patient and ordered mandatory revocation of his licence, along with a substantial costs award.

The appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but argued she was not his patient at the time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel's conclusion that a doctor-patient relationship existed was reasonable and supported by medical records.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding no error in principle despite its unusually high quantum, as it was driven by the appellant's defence strategy.

The appellant, holding 42% of the respondent corporation's shares, requisitioned a shareholders' meeting to remove certain directors.

The board rejected the requisition, claiming it was primarily to redress a personal grievance under s. 99(5)(b) of the Business Corporations Act.

The application judge agreed and dismissed the appellant's application to validate the requisition.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the application judge erred by reversing the onus and conflating personal interests with personal grievances.

The court held the dispute involved legitimate differences over corporate policy and operations, not merely personal grievances.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to call the meeting.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing the Board made procedural errors by issuing a faulty Confirmation of Filing that did not accurately reflect the Minister's question.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as they did not request the Board to reconsider its decision under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which would have allowed the Board to address the procedural errors and any resulting prejudice.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the respondent's wrongful dismissal claim.

The respondent, a former CSIS employee, alleged wrongful dismissal based on the revocation of his security clearance.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the CSIS Act provides a comprehensive administrative procedure for redress, precluding a civil action under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the respondent's claims for pre-termination salary and benefits were an abuse of process as they attempted to re-litigate issues already addressed through grievances.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.