Administrative Law

The appellants appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' orders cancelling their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) and seizing their commercial vehicle plates.

The Registrar issued the orders based on the appellants' unacceptable safety record, which included an Overall Violation Rate of 164.78% due to numerous collisions, convictions, and inspection defects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to demonstrate a concrete plan to improve safety and had a history of non-compliance despite previous interventions.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellants would not operate commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the Registrar's cancellation and seizure orders.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Suspension of his driver's licence issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the suspension was issued under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, for which there is no statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on an unsolicited medical report from the appellant's family doctor indicating a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy affecting his balance and coordination, including episodes of confusing the gas and brake pedals.

The appellant disputed the diagnosis and claimed he was a safe driver.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence persuasive and concluded that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant towing company sought a stay of a 30-day suspension of its Tow Operator Certificate pending appeal.

Although the Director consented to the stay subject to conditions, the Tribunal held that it could not grant a stay purely on consent under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but must independently apply the RJR-MacDonald test.

Applying the test, the Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried, potential irreparable harm to the appellant's business, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the agreed-upon safety conditions.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' after being struck by a wheel loader.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and erred in law and fact by misapplying the 'ordinary parlance' test from Adams and improperly weighing evidence regarding a police accident report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent had the opportunity to make submissions on the Adams test at the hearing and was improperly attempting to re-litigate the case and reweigh evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove Conditions on its liquor sales licence.

The parties subsequently reached a consent agreement after the initial objectors were consulted and did not oppose the removal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the removal of all 13 conditions from the licence pursuant to s. 11(3) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law by excluding his written submissions, relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment reports without the assessors testifying, and ignoring his expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that case law is not new evidence under Rule 18.2(c), the exclusion of written submissions in a videoconference hearing was proper, the applicant had the opportunity to summons the section 44 assessors but failed to do so, and the Tribunal is not required to comment on every piece of evidence in its decision.

The appellant, Douglas Naus, appealed an order confirming a Consent and Capacity Board decision that he was incapable of consenting to treatment and subject to a community treatment order (CTO) requiring antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the incapacity finding was moot, but exercised its discretion to decide the CTO issue, holding that the Board and appeal judge erred in interpreting the statutory preconditions for a CTO.

The Court held that the Mental Health Act requires successful treatment to have occurred during a prior hospitalization, not the current one, before a CTO can be issued.

The CTO was quashed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 (ROPA) violates section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and whether a public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law.

The appellant, Ontario Place Protectors, challenged the constitutionality of ROPA, arguing it insulated state action from judicial scrutiny and breached public trust.

The Court found the application judge erred in denying public interest standing but held that ROPA does not contravene section 96, as it preserves judicial review and does not usurp the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.

The Court also found no basis for a public trust doctrine in Canadian law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Canada, setting aside the conditional certification of a class action brought by Andrew Knisley, a veteran, regarding the administration of disability benefits by Veterans Affairs Canada.

The court found that conditional certification is not permitted under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether an identifiable class exists.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim in negligence disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct for using profanity towards a member of the public during a tense investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by equating the use of profanity with Discreditable Conduct absolutely, without applying the required objective test.

The Commission held that an objective test, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the community and considering the context of the situation, must be applied.

Given the tense and potentially dangerous circumstances of the call, the Commission concluded the single use of an expletive did not meet the objective test for Discreditable Conduct and revoked the finding.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty and deceit under the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair regarding new evidence (scratch notes) and the refusal to allow a witness to testify about GPS data.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant was provided the new evidence and the Hearing Officer properly exercised her gatekeeper function to exclude irrelevant testimony after the respondent admitted his error.

The Commission declined to re-examine the evidence, deferring to the Hearing Officer's factual findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after she pled guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charges arose from unauthorized CPIC searches and the disclosure of confidential police information to a known drug dealer.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by dismissing motions for abuse of process, a fact finder, and an adjournment, and by failing to give sufficient weight to expert evidence regarding her alcoholism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors in the Hearing Officer's procedural rulings or his weighing of the expert evidence.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of Discreditable Conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from the officers' failure to administer a breath test to a driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, despite the driver admitting to consuming one beer five hours earlier.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed the officers' credibility and correctly applied the objective test for Discreditable Conduct.

The Commission confirmed the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the officers' actions, while based on an incorrect understanding of their authority, were not likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police service.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued that the Notice of Hearing was inaccurate and that her hearing impairment prevented her from fully participating in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable notice and that the Hearing Officer took sufficient steps to accommodate the appellant's hearing impairment, ensuring procedural fairness.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of misconduct (discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence) and ordering his dismissal.

The misconduct related to his failure to report two separate kidnappings, conducting unauthorized CPIC queries, and disclosing confidential information.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Hearing Officer's decisions regarding delay, admission of video link and transcript evidence, credibility assessments, or the finding that his actions constituted discreditable conduct.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a 12-month demotion imposed after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for giving inconsistent and contradictory evidence in a criminal trial.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by treating his refusal to accept responsibility as an aggravating factor and by failing to apply principles of progressive discipline and consistency of penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the Hearing Officer erred in characterizing the lack of remorse as an aggravating factor rather than the absence of a mitigating factor, it did not render the penalty unreasonable.

The Commission also held that the demotion was within the range of reasonable penalties and that progressive discipline is not required in every case.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the status of its interim order appointing an Administrator to oversee the Durham Regional Police Service and the Durham Regional Police Services Board.

Finding that a crisis of confidence and fear of reprisal continued to constitute an emergency within the Service, the Commission extended the Administrator's appointment until December 31, 2020, to ensure the ongoing investigation could be completed without interference.

The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Orangeville Police Service and transition to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission granted consent, finding that adequate and effective police services would be maintained and that all members had contractual severance agreements, with any future disputes to be referred to arbitration.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing regarding facilitating communication with the mother about access.

He also sought to revive a previously settled complaint about the thoroughness of the Society's investigation into two incidents.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society was in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement, as it had proactively offered a service agreement which the applicant initially declined.

The Board also held that the applicant could not revive the investigation complaint, as it had been fully resolved at the pre-hearing.