Wendy M. Matheson

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Downtown Brampton Development Corporation (BIA) to withdraw its support for a pilot Food District operating on the applicants' property.

The BIA had previously endorsed the project subject to certain conditions but later revoked its approval after receiving complaints from competing businesses, without giving the applicants notice of the motion or an opportunity to be heard.

The Divisional Court applied the Baker factors and found the BIA's process was procedurally unfair.

The application was granted and the BIA's decision was quashed.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Reconsideration Decision that upheld the denial of their claims for non-earner and housekeeping benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LAT's handling of the hearing, including its evidentiary rulings and the substitution of an adjudicator for preliminary matters.

The court also dismissed the appellants' allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding a LAT adjudicator who subsequently accepted employment with a different insurer, finding the high threshold for bias was not met.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing.

The complaint alleged that the respondents improperly applied a local collective agreement over a provincial agreement in the construction industry.

The Divisional Court held that the application was not premature despite the applicant's failure to seek reconsideration from the Board.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board had reasonably concluded that the two collective agreements could co-exist, that inquiring into the complaint served no labour relations purpose since the affected employer did not participate, and that the declaratory relief sought was of limited practical utility.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board had found the statutory prerequisites were met but declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration, reasoning it would improperly expand the union's bargaining rights without any actual erosion of existing rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's exercise of discretion was reasonable, intelligible, and entitled to deference.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a special award on housing benefits.

The insurer had unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits but agreed to pay the full amount claimed shortly before the hearing.

The LAT Adjudicator granted a special award on most benefits but denied it for housing benefits because no report on the value of renovations to the existing home was provided under s. 16(4)(c) of the SABS.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by interpreting s. 10 to require an adjudication of the amount of the benefit when the insurer had already agreed to pay the claimed amount.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment designation and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to make a special award for benefits the insurer had delayed but ultimately agreed to pay before the hearing.

The Court also held the LAT breached procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the report of the insurer's psychiatric expert, who refused to attend the hearing for cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

The applicant, a family physician, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming a remedial caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to public statements the applicant made objecting to her church's COVID-19 communion protocols, in which she identified herself as a physician.

The applicant argued the decisions failed to reasonably balance her Charter right to religious expression under the Doré framework.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the screening committee reasonably balanced its statutory mandate to protect the public with the applicant's Charter rights, noting she was not precluded from expressing religious views, but cautioned on identifying herself as a physician when doing so.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the moving party failed to file the necessary material.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,812.50.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as unnecessary, finding that leave was not required.

The court directed the moving party to deliver a notice of appeal for a hearing to be scheduled after case management.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of R. Smith J. dated June 26, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without 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 tenants appealed an interlocutory order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that granted the landlord's review request and ordered a new hearing for a rent abatement application.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory order of the LTB.

The court declined to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, finding it would be premature.

The appeal was dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants failed to comply with court directions, did not deliver responding materials, and failed to attend the virtual hearing despite multiple notices.

The court found the appeal did not raise a valid question of law, was manifestly devoid of merit, and was brought solely to delay the eviction.

The motion to quash was granted and the stay of the eviction order was lifted.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had found that the accident was not a necessary cause of her psychological impairment and that a subsequent 2018 volleyball injury was an intervening event.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of causation, pre-existing injuries, or the intervening event.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The tenant argued the planned work was a renovation, which would afford a right of first refusal to re-occupy the unit, rather than a demolition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for demolition and that the tenant's arguments amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue findings of fact.

The eviction was delayed due to the tenant's personal circumstances.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to the Divisional Court.

The respondents requested the court initiate the process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the proceeding.

The court found that there is no statutory right or jurisdiction to seek leave to appeal from a decision of the IPC to the Divisional Court.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dated July 30, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

Consequently, the responding party's cross-motion was dismissed as moot without costs.

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all inclusive to the responding party.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision to sanction her for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The sanctions arose from the applicant's conduct and statements, including social media posts, criticizing the board and fellow trustees.

The applicant argued the decision infringed her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that she was denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, proportionately balanced the applicant's expressive rights with the statutory objectives of the Education Act, and afforded her adequate procedural fairness.