Wendy M. Matheson

The appellant filed two notices of appeal challenging a costs decision made by an Associate Justice.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that leave to appeal is required for costs decisions under s. 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant failed to seek leave to appeal and instead made submissions challenging the costs order and a prior peremptory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01 as an abuse of process because it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals without leave, but granted the appellant two weeks to file a proper motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a four-month suspension.

The misconduct involved the appellant's role as a designated manager in overseeing the ordering of veterinary drugs from a wholesaler through a veterinarian's account using a false name, contrary to regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's evidentiary rulings, its interpretation of the relevant regulations, or its assessment of the penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal had concluded her whole person impairment rating was 49%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's assessment of a 0% impairment for the spine and its correction of the upper extremity impairment calculation on reconsideration were reasonable and within its statutory authority to apply the AMA Guides.

The Law Society of Ontario requested the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to review a decision not to investigate a complaint.

The applicant submitted he was seeking to quash the decision and have it redone, not specifically requesting an investigation.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1, finding that while there may be a valid jurisdiction issue, it should be raised and determined within the normal course of the application rather than through the summary Rule 2.1 process.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to disclose the identities of third parties financing their living expenses, arguing that disclosure posed a risk to the funders' personal safety.

The motion judge had failed to address this safety issue.

The respondents argued the appeal was moot because the underlying motion to vary the Mareva injunction had already been decided using a counsels' eyes-only agreement.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not moot due to the ongoing safety controversy.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the case management judge to determine the safety risk.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was provided, the court ordered no costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

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

The appellant initiated an appeal to the Divisional Court from a Superior Court decision that dismissed her action against her former husband's counsel under Rule 2.1.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting that an appeal from a dismissal of an action in the Superior Court lies to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

The appellant failed to address the jurisdictional issue or request a transfer to the Court of Appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1 for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraphs 7-11 of the order of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

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

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an appeal concerning the interpretation of 'minor injury' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that OTLA's proposed submissions overlapped substantially with the appellant's factum and that the perspective and interests were adequately represented without OTLA's involvement.

The court concluded that OTLA was unlikely to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a Board decision requiring her to reimburse OHIP over $600,000 for COVID-19 vaccinations administered at mass clinics.

The Board found the applicant failed to meet strict billing requirements for delegated services because the medical students and other physicians who administered the vaccines were not her 'employees'.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation of the delegation requirements as reasonable.

However, the Court found the Board's refusal to grant relief under the 'extenuating circumstances' provision of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable, given the context of the global pandemic and the applicant's good faith efforts to facilitate mass vaccinations.

The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the appropriate reimbursement amount.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting an eviction order for non-payment of rent exceeding $20,000.

The applicants failed to file required court documents, failed to serve a notice of constitutional question, and failed to comply with an interim stay order requiring rental payments.

At the hearing, the attending applicant advanced pseudolegal arguments regarding his identity as a private beneficial owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to comply with directions and failed to show the application should be granted on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination claim.

The respondents raised the issue of prematurity because the applicant did not seek reconsideration at the Tribunal.

The prematurity issue was bifurcated for a separate hearing.

The Divisional Court concluded it was not advisable to separate the prematurity issue from the rest of the application and adjourned it to be decided by the panel hearing the full application for judicial review.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated July 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs, fixed at the agreed amount of $7,500, to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that denied its right to recover wage overpayments made to employees due to a mistake of fact.

The arbitrator had found that the union established the defence of estoppel and that the collective agreement provision relied on the employer only governed the process for recovery, not the absolute entitlement to it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that labour arbitrators have flexibility in applying equitable doctrines like estoppel without requiring a formal, detailed analysis of every component.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent on property issues following a 34-year marriage.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for unjust enrichment and an unequal division of net family property, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding allegations that the respondent diverted funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's preference for the respondent's financial reconciliation over the appellant's expert report, and no error of law in determining the unequal division claim before finalizing the exact equalization payment.

The moving parties brought motions to quash part of an application for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction and to strike out certain expert evidence.

The underlying application challenged a decision by the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the Abitibi River Water Management Plan and sought a declaration that the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act regime is unconstitutional for failing to trigger the duty to consult.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to hear the broad constitutional challenge and transferred that portion of the application to the Superior Court.

The motion to strike evidence was adjourned to the panel hearing the judicial review.