Administrative Law

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 appellants sought to consolidate two leave to appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal, arising from regulatory action by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector concerning sled dogs.

The first leave application related to the legality of dog removal and compliance orders, while the second concerned a statement of account for dog care costs.

The court applied Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding a common factual origin but distinct legal questions.

The motion judge dismissed the consolidation request, concluding that the balance of convenience did not favour consolidation, as there was little efficiency to be gained in written leave applications and the potential prejudice to the respondent outweighed marginal benefits.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order, attempting to adduce fresh medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test for admissibility as it would not have affected the Minister's assessment of the applicant's medical situation or the surrender decision.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 14-storey residential building, an increase from an approved 11-storey building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed intensification near a major transit station area was consistent with provincial policies and constituted good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of conditions including a section 37 agreement.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal to adopt a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the severance of two existing residential lots into three lots for single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed reductions in minimum lot area and frontage represented appropriate 'gentle intensification' consistent with provincial and regional policies.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for increased maximum lot coverage, finding that the proposed 34% coverage on smaller lots would be an overdevelopment incompatible with the planned built form context of the stable residential neighbourhood.

An interim order was issued pending finalization of the zoning by-law amendment and provisional consent.

Homestead Land Holdings Limited appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit two high-rise mixed-use developments on brownfield sites in the downtown North Block.

The City and Homestead subsequently reached a settlement supporting revised proposals.

The Frontenac Heritage Foundation opposed the developments, arguing they would adversely impact nearby heritage conservation districts and character areas due to their height and visual intrusion.

The Tribunal found the revised proposals compatible with the surrounding built form, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, noting the sites were designated for major development and intensification.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding various remaining appeals to the City of London's new Official Plan, known as the 'London Plan'.

The Tribunal scheduled hearing dates for the remaining city-wide appeals and site-specific appeals, approved a Procedural Order, and provided directions for future case management conferences.

The Ministry of Transportation applied to the Ontario Land Tribunal for approval to close portions of six municipal roads to facilitate the replacement of an existing cloverleaf interchange at Highway 401 and Highway 4 with a new Parclo A-4 design.

The application was opposed by the owners of adjacent commercial properties, who argued that the closure and realignment of Burtwistle Lane would negatively impact their stormwater pond and potentially landlock their properties.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the Ministry's highway design engineer that the existing interchange was deficient and the proposed realignment would significantly improve driver safety.

Finding that public safety must prevail over the convenience of private property owners, the Tribunal approved the road closings.

A dual-status offender appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to decline his request for a placement review hearing as part of his annual disposition review.

The appellant had been found Not Criminally Responsible in 1997 and subsequently convicted of murder in 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in declining to conduct a placement review hearing where the appellant had not requested one prior to the scheduled hearing date, other parties were not ready to proceed, and the disposition review hearing was already significantly overdue.

The court noted that the appellant remained entitled to request a placement review hearing under section 672.69(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of misconduct for allegedly using unnecessary force by kicking a handcuffed suspect.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the evidence and found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a definitive finding on whether the appellant actually kicked the suspect as alleged in the Statement of Particulars.

Concluding that the evidence did not meet the required standard of clear and convincing proof, the Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the charge.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions related to access visits and communications.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues of access and disclosure were already before the Court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant was complaining about the Society's process, communications, and treatment of her, rather than the substantive issues of access and disclosure which were before the Court.

The applicants, a mother and grandparents, filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions and a failure to allow them to be heard regarding child protection involvement.

The Board reviewed ten specific complaints, including allegations of harassment, threats, and lack of communication.

The Board dismissed nine of the complaints, finding the Society had provided reasons and opportunities to be heard.

However, the Board upheld one complaint regarding the grandmother's health issues, finding she was not given an opportunity to be heard, and ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting on that issue.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it impeded his access to his children by advising his ex-wife to screen his calls and by failing to adequately encourage his adolescent children in foster care to visit him.

The Board found that the society had no control over the mother's use of an answering machine and had appropriately responded to the applicant's concerns.

Regarding the adolescent children, the Board concluded the society had fulfilled its statutory duty to hear the applicant's concerns and had made reasonable efforts to facilitate contact, despite the children's refusal.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society discriminated against him by imposing supervised access and withholding contact information for his children.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the court in a status review application.

The Board granted the motion in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the terms of access and disclosure of contact information, as those issues were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the respondent's facilitation of visits and its obligation to allow the applicant to be heard regarding the services provided.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 20 days' pay imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to neglect of duty regarding a fatal accident investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction under section 68(1) of the Police Services Act by imposing a penalty not enumerated in the statute, and made numerous errors in applying sentencing principles.

The Commission substituted a penalty of forfeiture of six days or 48 hours off, noting the systemic failures and lack of supervision that contributed to the officer's neglect.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or the penalty of dismissal.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month gradation in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation with a subordinate officer who had previously filed a human rights complaint against him.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's arguments regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence that the Appellant's conduct constituted a reprisal.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in considering expunged informal discipline records, and reduced the penalty to a loss of 48 hours' time.

The appellants, two police detectives, appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglecting their duty during a surveillance operation.

The only issue on appeal was whether they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that clear and convincing evidence, including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the use of police vehicles, established they were on duty.

The appeal against the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence was also dismissed, as the penalty appropriately balanced the officer's unblemished record with the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

The appellant, a police superintendent, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of a reprimand.

The charge arose from allegations that he failed to initiate an investigation after being informed by the widow of a murdered officer that two other officers were improperly absent from duty on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision, which relied on the widow's testimony over the appellant's, was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse for possessing and cultivating marijuana.

The member admitted to the allegations and the panel accepted an agreed statement of facts.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a six-month suspension (with five months suspended) and an oral reprimand.