Administrative Law

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 29, 2025, concerning whether the Board erred in declining to add a community living clause to a detention order.

The appellant argued that the majority of the Board focused exclusively on public safety and dismissed the attending psychiatrist's opinion that the clause would be therapeutically beneficial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's majority was entitled to determine that adding a community living clause would be therapeutically harmful on balance in the specific circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the psychiatrist's contrary opinion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Law Society of Ontario’s appeal regarding the respondent’s application for licensure as a paralegal.

The court found that the tribunals below properly considered the respondent’s criminal offence and professional misconduct, and that there was no error in their assessment of her rehabilitation and good character.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, sought to conduct Rule 39.03 examinations of three witnesses (Registrar of HRTO, former ALOC president, and Crown counsel) in preparation for a jurisdiction motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (HMK).

HMK, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) each moved to quash the respective summonses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's preliminary motion to strike portions of HMK's material.

The court granted all motions to quash, finding that the evidence sought was not relevant to the jurisdiction motion, was protected by statutory privilege (for HRTO Registrar) or solicitor-client privilege (for Crown counsel), or constituted an abuse of process as a fishing expedition for the underlying claim's merits.

The appellants appealed their convictions for offences under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fishing Licensing Regulation, specifically concerning the interpretation of an exemption related to buying baitfish for commercial purposes without a license.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the exemption in s. 32(1) of the Regulation applies only to the general prohibition in s. 51(1) of the FWCA, not to the specific commercial baitfish prohibition in s. 31.3(1)(b) of the Regulation.

The court also rejected a due diligence/mistake of fact defence, reiterating that misinterpretation of law is not a valid defence.

This appeal arose from the dismissal of a class proceeding claiming damages against the Crown for negligence related to the presence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada between 2003 and 2008.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding it barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and also that no duty of care was owed and no negligence occurred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, focusing solely on the application of section 9.

It found that various government programs providing financial assistance to cattle farmers in response to the BSE outbreak constituted "compensation" under section 9, thereby barring the negligence claim as it sought double recovery for the same factual basis of loss.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) appealed a motion judge's order requiring it to pay $156,461.99 in costs following an unsuccessful interlocutory injunction motion brought by students against Seneca College's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Court of Appeal found the costs order fundamentally flawed because the motion judge failed to determine if the litigation was public interest litigation and did not apply the correct legal tests for awarding costs against a non-party (the "person of straw" test or abuse of process).

The Court clarified that fundraising or promoting a case on a website does not constitute abuse of process.

The Court also stated that JCCF's refusal to disclose whether it was indemnifying the students was a relevant consideration for costs.

The appeal was allowed, the costs order set aside, and the matter remitted to the motion judge for a fresh determination.

The moving parties, former residents of St. Anne's Indian Residential School, appealed an order appointing an Independent Special Advisor (ISA) to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims and sought an interim preservation order for documents.

They argued the ISA appointment undercut ongoing proceedings and was made by a biased judge.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no serious issue on appeal due to the probable interlocutory nature of the order, no irreparable harm to the moving parties, and the balance of convenience not favoring a stay.

The preservation order was also denied due to ongoing related proceedings and Canada's undertaking to preserve documents.

The applicant, George Fritz, sought a reference hearing under s.74(1) of the Firearms Act after his firearms were reclassified from restricted to prohibited by Orders-in-Council SOR/2020-96, leading to the nullification of his registration certificates.

He argued that the Registrar of Firearms' letter constituted a "revocation" of his certificates, triggering his right to a reference.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss the application, contending that the Registrar's actions were merely informational, and the nullification occurred by operation of law, not a discretionary decision by the Registrar.

The court, following a preponderance of judicial thinking, agreed with the Attorney General, finding that the Registrar's communication was informational and did not constitute a "decision" to revoke.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction under s.74(1) to hear the reference, and the applicant's request was dismissed.

In a group of six child protection appeals, the appellant J.B. brought a motion to reconstitute the panel, seeking to replace one of the judges due to her involvement in a prior unanimous decision that had reinstated a no-access order against J.B. The appellant argued for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion, reaffirming the strong presumption of judicial impartiality and the high burden on the party alleging bias.

The court held that a judge's prior ruling against a party on a legal issue in a different case does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias for a new case involving different legal issues, even if the parties are the same.

This is an appeal from an initial disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for assault causing bodily harm and assaulting a peace officer.

The appellant challenged the ORB's finding that he posed a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and, alternatively, argued for a conditional discharge instead of a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and amply supported by evidence, including expert opinions on the appellant's high risk for violent behaviour, lack of insight, and history of non-compliance with treatment.

The court affirmed that the ORB's decision to impose a detention order with community living privileges was justified, particularly for supervising housing and ensuring prompt readmission if the appellant relapsed, given his history of threatening housemates.

ATV Farms sought certiorari to quash search warrants and production orders, and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed, following a CFIA investigation into alleged mislabelling of produce.

The court found reasonable grounds for specific mislabelling offences related to US-grown turnips (Counts 1-4) but not for broader, unparticularized allegations (Count 5).

The Information to Obtain (ITO) contained inaccurate and misleading statements regarding a prior incident, which, once corrected, undermined the grounds for Count 5.

The court held that the broad search warrants and production orders could not be severed and were therefore unlawful, infringing ATV Farms's s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board regarding a respondent found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for violent offences committed at a Canadian Forces recruiting centre.

The respondent was diagnosed with schizophrenia and found incapable of knowing his conduct was morally wrong.

The Board ordered detention on a secure forensic unit but granted limited indirectly supervised privileges to attend a local college for educational purposes within a two-kilometre radius of the hospital.

The Crown challenged both the indirect supervision privilege and the Board's failure to prohibit all contact with uniformed military personnel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding the Board did not err in law and its disposition was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his action in the Ontario Superior Court on the basis that the Canada Industrial Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over his claim.

The appellant sought redress for union disciplinary actions taken against him following his allegations of financial and procedural improprieties within the union.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the essential character of the claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board under the Canada Labour Code.

This motion concerns the taxation of three bankrupt estates following negative comments from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB).

The OSB challenged the trustee's practice of obtaining "GST Refund Assignment" agreements from bankrupts to retain Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds for estate administration costs or conditional orders.

The trustee argued these agreements, if properly worded and understood by the bankrupt, could waive the exempt status of GST refunds, citing *Re McIntyre*.

The court disagreed, finding such agreements unenforceable as GST refunds are Crown debts not assignable under the *Financial Administration Act* and are expressly excluded from divisible property under the *Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act* (BIA) and its Rules when a dividend is available to creditors.

The court held that statutory law cannot be circumvented by contractual agreements, requiring the trustee to return the GST refunds to the bankrupts and restate the estate accounts.

An appeal from a motion judge's decision certifying a class action and granting partial summary judgment against an anaesthesiologist in a bacterial infection outbreak case.

The motion judge certified the class proceeding and found the defendant breached his duty of care regarding infection prevention and control practices.

The appellate court allowed the appeal on procedural fairness grounds, finding that the motion judge reformulated the certified common issue without notice to or submissions from the parties, and then decided the summary judgment motion on the basis of this new formulation.

The court held that this violated procedural fairness and entitled the defendant to a new hearing.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01 for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant had signed a Voluntary Recognition Agreement on behalf of his company with the respondent union in 2008.

He subsequently challenged the validity of the agreement before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, claiming he lacked capacity due to health issues.

The OLRB upheld the agreement's validity, and the Divisional Court dismissed his judicial review application.

The appellant then commenced a Superior Court action seeking damages, alleging misrepresentations by the union.

The motion judge struck out the claim as an abuse of process, finding that the OLRB had exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the validity of the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to refuse a building permit for an already constructed 21-room building, which they labelled as a "single family dwelling" but was designed and previously operated as a hotel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the CBO was entitled to look beyond the label and consider the building's design, layout, and prior use to determine its intended purpose.

The CBO's conclusion that the building contravened applicable zoning by-laws for a single-family dwelling was deemed reasonable and correct.

The respondent parents brought a motion for a costs order against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in the amount of $45,000, claiming they were the successful party following the society's withdrawal of its protection application.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the society had reasonable and probable grounds to commence the protection application, acted reasonably throughout the proceedings, and that the withdrawal of the application did not constitute "success" for the parents in the manner contemplated by the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized that in child protection cases, both the society and parents typically share the common goal of family reunification, and that the society's decision to withdraw was based on the parents' successful completion of remedial programming.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of disobeying a red light signal as captured by a red light camera system.

The trial justice dismissed the charge on the basis that the specific location of the offence was not displayed on the face of the photograph itself, only on the back via certification by a provincial offences officer.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and entered a finding of guilt, holding that the applicable legislation and regulations do not require the specific intersection location to be displayed on the photograph itself.

The location code on the photograph, combined with the certified statement of the provincial offences officer and the certificate of offence, satisfied the statutory requirements for proof of the place of offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while using a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was based on ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that the paralegal agent conducted the trial in the appellant's absence despite him being present in the building, thereby depriving him of his right to be present at trial.

The court found that the agent's conduct constituted a miscarriage of justice and ordered a new trial before a different Justice of the Peace.