Administrative Law

M.F. appealed a decision affirming his incapacity to make treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medication.

The Consent and Capacity Board and the Superior Court of Justice had previously confirmed Dr. Milovic's finding of incapacity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly weighed the evidence, including the medical opinion that M.F.'s psychosis was due to schizophrenia, not drug-induced psychosis, despite arguments about cannabis use.

Dr. Covant, a veterinarian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a finding of professional misconduct by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The misconduct stemmed from re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, which violated an amended regulation (s. 33(2)(d) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093) restricting such sales to "reasonably limited quantities" for "temporary shortages." Covant argued the regulation was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, the misconduct finding was erroneous, and the imposed penalty was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming that the regulation was not impermissibly vague or overbroad, the professional misconduct was properly established given Covant's ongoing sub-distribution enterprise, and the one-month suspension and costs award were fit and reasonable.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental illness, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition maintaining his detention at a high-security psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued the ORB failed to consider all statutory factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, recognize a treatment impasse, and exercise its inquisitorial and supervisory powers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court held that the ORB properly considered all relevant factors, reasonably declined to find a treatment impasse given the facility's ongoing efforts to find treatment options, and adequately fulfilled its supervisory responsibilities.

The Algonquins appealed a motion judge's decision to strike most of their claims against Ontario and the Métis Nation of Ontario regarding harvesting rights.

The core issue was Ontario's duty to consult and accommodate Algonquin interests before recognizing Métis communities and extending unlimited harvesting rights, which allegedly impacted Algonquin resources.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in striking claims for declaratory relief based on standing and in compelling the Algonquins to pursue judicial review instead of an action.

The court emphasized a generous approach to pleadings in Indigenous cases and that the duty to consult provides standing for consequential relief.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating most of the Algonquins' claims, while the cross-appeals by Ontario and the Métis Nation were dismissed.

The appellant, Canada Christian College (CCC), appealed a Divisional Court decision that dismissed its application for judicial review.

CCC challenged the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities' decision not to recommend proclamation of legislation that would grant CCC university status and degree-granting rights, following a negative recommendation from the Post-Secondary Education Quality Assessment Board.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's findings, holding that the Minister's decision to refer CCC's application to the Board was within his authority (intra vires) and that his subsequent decision to delay proclamation was reasonable and not an unlawful attempt to override the Legislature's will.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, clarifying the limits of ministerial discretion regarding legislative proclamation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed its motion to stay a class proceeding initiated by Brewers Retail Inc. and a committee of pension plan members.

The class proceeding sought court approval of a comprehensive settlement regarding pension indexing issues, including amendments to the pension plan and trust, and compensation for known and unknown plan members.

FSRA argued that the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) had exclusive jurisdiction over these matters under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and the Financial Services Tribunal Act, 2017 (FSTA).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction, noting that neither the FSTA nor the PBA contained clear and unequivocal language ousting the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction to approve settlements and vary trusts.

The court affirmed that the class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the FST lacked the power to approve the settlement or vary the pension trust, and the class action provided the necessary finality for all affected plan members.

The Appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a light industrial development.

The parties settled most issues, but disputed whether the Regional Municipality of Halton could require the Appellant to dedicate land at no cost for a future road extension as a condition of site plan approval under s. 41(8) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed road extension constituted a new road rather than a 'widening' under s. 41(8), and that requiring the land dedication without compensation would be unfair and akin to expropriation.

The Tribunal also found the Region lacked authority to regulate access points on the Appellant's private driveway before acquiring the land.

The appeal was allowed and the disputed conditions were deleted.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to pass official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a 29-storey residential building, the Tribunal considered requests for Party and Participant status.

The Tribunal granted Party status to several residents groups and condominium corporations, and Participant status to 30 individuals and groups.

The Tribunal also approved the consolidated Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a 17-day hearing for October 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act for the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application proposes a 38-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on April 4, 2022.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties advised that Tribunal-led mediation had resulted in an agreement in principle for the McMaster University appeals.

The Tribunal consolidated the McMaster appeals and scheduled a potential settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also heard updates regarding the West End Home Builders' Association and 2362302 Ontario Inc. appeals, noting significant progress, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow discussions to continue.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant consent to sever a property to create three new lots and one retained lot for semi-detached dwellings.

While the proposal met zoning requirements and provincial intensification policies, the Tribunal found it did not conform to the City's Official Plan policies regarding compatibility and fit.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the opposing planning expert, concluding that the proposed lot widths and built form failed to respect the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Duca Financial Services Credit Union Ltd., appealed a Master's order declining to recuse himself from hearing a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of an action.

Duca Financial alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Master's case management actions and comments during the recusal motion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and affirmed the Master's decision to continue hearing the motion.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for insubordination and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from her failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and her subsequent conduct during the investigation.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding that the order to answer questions orally was lawful and that the finding of deceit was supported by evidence of her actual knowledge of the events.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the dismissal to a demotion to second class constable for one year, citing her unblemished record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from a criminal conviction for uttering death threats against his wife and mother-in-law, which he communicated to his young children.

This was his second disciplinary conviction relating to domestic violence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the damage to the police service's reputation, and that the penalty was within the appropriate range.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalties imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct, as well as the withdrawal of other disciplinary charges.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine the appellant's standing as a public complainant and its jurisdiction over withdrawn charges.

The Commission found that the appellant's statement to the OPP during a criminal investigation did not constitute a public complaint under Part V of the Police Services Act.

The appellant only had standing to appeal the penalty for one count arising from a later written complaint.

Furthermore, the Commission ruled it had no statutory authority to hear appeals regarding disciplinary charges that were withdrawn by the prosecutor, as no decision had been rendered on those charges.

The Township of Terrace Bay applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Terrace Bay Police Service, intending to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed OPP policing model, which involved integrating municipal resources with the Nipigon OPP Detachment.

The Commission found that the proposed staffing levels, supervision, and equipment were adequate and effective.

However, the Commission imposed conditions requiring facility upgrades, including cell renovations and backup power, and mandated monitoring of response times during periods when officers are on call.

The Commission consented to the abolishment of the municipal police service, directing that any unresolved severance issues for existing members proceed to arbitration.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of 15 days off.

The charge arose from allegations that he made offensive, sexist comments about women while supervising a probationary female officer on a paid duty assignment.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred by relying on the uncorroborated testimony of the probationary officer and failing to properly assess credibility.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's credibility determinations were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting the appellant's leadership role, his recent disciplinary history, and the serious nature of making demeaning remarks while in uniform.

The appellant brought an application under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act seeking leave to appeal decisions arising from disciplinary proceedings against a police constable.

The parties agreed that two preliminary matters needed to be determined before the leave to appeal application could proceed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and a penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours.

He had refused to answer questions regarding an investigation into the death of an infant, arguing that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and had a right to remain silent under the Charter.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the order to answer questions was lawful and that the Charter did not provide a lawful excuse to disobey the order, as any compelled statements could not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The appellant, a detective sergeant with 26 years of service, appealed the disciplinary penalties imposed after being found guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct for submitting false expense claims to an external law enforcement network.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a forfeiture of 20 days' leave for the first count and a six-month reduction in rank to sergeant for the second count.

On appeal, the appellant argued the penalties were excessive and violated the totality principle.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the two infractions were distinct and separated by time, justifying cumulative penalties.

The Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the mitigating factors and that the penalties were consistent with prior cases involving misappropriation by police officers.