Wendy M. Matheson

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated October 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal, subject to the quantum of costs being fixed at the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court dated January 20, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 for each motion.

The plaintiff and the franchisee defendants brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated December 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $5,000 each and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants appealed a default judgment decision that awarded them $2,260 for a breached website development contract but denied their claims for $90,000 in lost revenue, a mandatory order, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The court upheld the finding that the appellants failed to mitigate their damages by letting their website expire instead of hiring another service provider, and affirmed the discretionary denial of the mandatory order due to the disproportionate nature of the litigation.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a 2021 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint as premature.

The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations for medical issues, the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the three-year delay or demonstrate apparent grounds for relief.

The court found the proceeding met the test under Rule 2.1 and dismissed the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application.

The applicant had alleged that his termination during his probationary period was based on sex discrimination and reprisal.

The HRTO found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence connecting his termination to a protected ground.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision was logical and justified.

The applicant physiotherapist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision.

The ICRC had investigated a patient complaint of inappropriate touching and, while unable to determine the truth of the allegations, required the applicant to complete a remedial education program and receive a caution due to poor record-keeping and boundary concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions reasonable, noting that the remedies were educational rather than punitive and were supported by the evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant's son, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant himself, was improperly attempting to represent his mother and pursue the litigation on his own behalf without her sworn authorization or proper medical evidence of her capacity.

Concluding that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent prior orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

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 fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to issue a decision on his discrimination complaint, which had been pending since March 2021.

Before the application was heard, the tribunal released its decision dismissing the complaint due to delay.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the application despite it being moot, alleging irreparable harm from the delay.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding it focused on the specific circumstances of the complaint rather than broader issues of public importance.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

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 and reserved costs to the appeal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant developer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $1,736,271.23 to the respondent condominium corporation for major structural defects in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding a major structural defect, improperly extended the seven-year warranty, failed to find the claims were released, and improperly awarded damages for portions of the garage owned by others.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the expert evidence, contractual interpretation, or damages award, noting that the garage was a fully integrated structure requiring comprehensive repair.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld findings of professional misconduct and a penalty of permission to resign.

The misconduct involved the appellant's participation in two dishonest international financial transactions where advance fees were deposited into his trust account and disbursed without any loans being secured.

The appellant argued that the tribunal erred in its findings of knowledge and recklessness, misapplied penalty principles, and improperly dismissed interlocutory motions alleging systemic anti-Black racism and bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the tribunal's decisions on misconduct, penalty, costs, or its jurisdiction to order reimbursement to the Compensation Fund.

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father equal parenting time with their two-year-old child.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by ignoring the status quo, minimizing allegations of family violence, and failing to adequately consider the child's medical conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests under the Divorce Act.

The court held that the motion judge properly considered the father's willingness to care for the child, the unlikelihood of family violence recurring post-separation, and the maximum contact principle.

The appellants brought motions under Rule 59.06 to set aside a 2018 Divisional Court judgment that upheld securities fraud findings and sanctions against them.

In response, the Ontario Securities Commission moved for security for costs and to strike out seven expert reports filed by the appellants.

The Divisional Court granted the Commission's motions, ordering the appellants to post $100,000 in security for costs due to unpaid prior costs awards.

The court also struck out all seven expert reports, finding they improperly opined on matters of domestic law and factual findings that are the exclusive province of the court, failing the necessity criterion for expert evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination after the National Committee on Accreditation required him to complete two years of in-class instruction because his foreign law degree was obtained through online self-study.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the mode of study policy was not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and applied to all students regardless of place of origin, age, or family status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to commence an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.