84 total
Tribunal order granting intervenor status to LCBO in stay motions quashed due to lack of interest.
The applicant brought an application to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.
The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee.
The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to grant intervenor status was incorrect, as the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would distort the adversarial process.
The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.
In camera hearing orders by tribunal quashed for failing to consider less restrictive measures.
The applicants sought judicial review of orders made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario directing that a hearing proceed in camera and restricting the attendance of counsel for interested persons.
The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.
The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.
Tribunal's in camera orders quashed as it failed to consider less restrictive measures to protect proceedings.
The applicant sought judicial review of three orders made by a panel of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that directed a hearing to proceed in camera and excluded counsel for interested persons.
The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.
Appeal dismissed; proposed counterclaim for abuse of process failed to plead a definite act or threat.
The appellants appealed an order dismissing their proposed counterclaim for abuse of process.
The appellants alleged that the respondents' letter of complaint to the I.D.A. was sent for the improper purpose of extorting a settlement in a civil claim.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed counterclaim failed to plead facts of a definite act or threat in furtherance of the illegitimate purpose, which is a required element of the tort of abuse of process.