Administrative Law

The applicant sought judicial review to quash the City of London's approval of a site plan for a townhouse development and a letter from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the UTRCA letter was not a reviewable decision and that the City Council's approval of the site plan was an intra vires municipal decision that was not patently unreasonable.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a City Council decision granting site plan approval for a condominium development on environmentally sensitive lands near the Thames River.

The applicant attempted to introduce fresh affidavit evidence from experts and herself.

The court admitted portions of the expert evidence commenting on the revised site plan but rejected the applicant's affidavit.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the City Council's decision was not patently unreasonable because the developer's environmental undertakings to the Ontario Municipal Board would be enforced by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding compensation to the complainant for alleged sexual and physical abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainant's uncorroborated evidence over conflicting evidence, and by relying on a medical report that was never disclosed to the appellants.

The Board's decision was quashed and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an application brought by the applicant landowner on short notice.

The parties agreed to the adjournment, but the applicant sought terms to prevent the inclusion of its lands in the Greenbelt area pending the hearing.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the planning process to proceed.

The court also noted that section 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act prevents the granting of an injunction against the Crown.

The motion for adjournment was granted without terms.

The Minister of Finance appealed an order granting the respondent an extension of time to file a notice of appeal regarding a tax assessment.

The respondent had filed his notice of appeal 37 days after the 90-day limitation period prescribed by the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to extend the express limitation period set out in the Act, and that the Minister was not estopped from relying on the limitation period.

The respondent co-operative brought a motion to quash the applicant member's application for judicial review of a decision to terminate her membership and occupancy rights.

The court held that the Co-operative Corporations Act provides an adequate and appropriate alternative forum for challenging eviction decisions, offering extensive protections including a hearing before the Superior Court of Justice.

Finding no basis that judicial review would provide a better avenue of relief, the court granted the motion to quash the application.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering her eviction for allegedly assaulting another tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's application, finding that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and failed to properly consider relief from eviction under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court noted the tenant's lack of prior history of violence, her success in the related criminal proceeding, and her responsibility for four minor children.

The appellant denturist appealed a Discipline Committee's findings of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct, which included fabricating inadequate dentures, poor record-keeping, and secretly tape-recording a conversation with a patient.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that evidence was obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure, noting the items were voluntarily supplied or in plain view.

However, because the Committee's reasons contained factual errors regarding the timing of the denture fabrication and the appellant's practices after taking remedial courses, the court remitted the matter of penalty to the Committee for reconsideration.

The appellants, representing members of a salaried pension plan, appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that upheld the Superintendent's consent to merge their plan with an hourly-paid plan.

The appellants argued the merger would dilute their plan's surplus and that the surplus constituted 'other benefits' protected under s. 81(5) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

On the merits, the Court found that an actuarial surplus in an ongoing defined benefit plan is not an 'other benefit' under s. 81(5), and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants brought a motion within an application for judicial review of the Town of Markham's decision refusing to renew their body rub parlour licence.

The motion sought to compel the production of police and court records relating to other licence applications to show the licensing process was arbitrary and capricious.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the documents were not relevant to the issues pleaded in the judicial review application and that administrative tribunals are not bound by stare decisis or challenges based on discriminatory enforcement.

Following a judgment released on January 22, 2004, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The appellant sought costs of $6,778.50.

The respondent requested a no-costs order due to financial hardship but conceded the quantum was reasonable.

The Divisional Court found no reason to depart from the rule that costs follow the event and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant costs fixed at $6,778.50.

The applicants sought costs of $120,000 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful judicial review application.

The respondents argued that $30,000 was appropriate.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness from Boucher, the Divisional Court considered factors including the length of the hearing, the complexity of the issues, the voluminous record, and duplication of effort by applicants' counsel.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding that the union engaged in bad faith bargaining and imposing a remedy that affected the applicant's 'Me Too' collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness, and found that the OLRB had ample evidence and authority to fashion the remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a proposed landfill expansion.

The core issue was the interpretation of section 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically whether the phrase 'other than' meant 'in addition to' or 'different from' the standard requirements.

The Divisional Court held that 'other than' means 'in addition to', requiring the proponent to fulfill the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements listed in section 6.1(2).

The Minister's decision approving the Terms of Reference was quashed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The revocation was based on the appellant's failure to disclose a criminal record, failure to disclose an outstanding judgment, and selling a vehicle without properly disclosing the correct odometer reading.

The Divisional Court found clear and cogent evidence that the appellant breached his registration conditions, allowed an unregistered salesperson to sell a car, and submitted a fraudulent bill of sale to deceive the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed and the revocation upheld.

The appellant gravel pit operators challenged municipal by-laws that imposed a volumetric fee for soil and gravel removal permits.

They argued the fees constituted indirect taxation ultra vires the province and that the by-laws were discriminatory.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the volumetric fees, while indirect in their general tendency, were supportable under the provincial licensing power as they were ancillary to a valid regulatory scheme intended to cover the costs of road repair and regulation.

The Court also found that any discrimination between commercial and non-commercial extractors was implicitly authorized by the enabling provincial legislation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Canada Labour Relations Board ordered several airlines to produce documents during an investigation of a union's application for amendment of certification.

The airlines refused, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to compel document production outside a formal hearing.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Board's order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that under section 118(a) of the Canada Labour Code, the Board's power to compel the production of documents may only be exercised in the context of a formal hearing.

The appellant company closed its plant and terminated group insurance benefits for retired workers following the expiration of the collective agreement.

The union grieved the termination of benefits.

The company objected to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on the basis that the collective agreement had expired.

The arbitrator found the matter arbitrable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction must be correct, applying a pragmatic and functional approach.

The Court further held that retirement benefits can vest and survive the expiration of a collective agreement, allowing the grievance to proceed.

The appellant, a street flower vendor, was charged with exposing goods for sale without a licence contrary to a municipal by-law and with obstructing a peace officer after refusing to obey an order to move.

The by-law scheme permitted only owners or occupants of abutting property to apply for a sidewalk use licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the enabling provincial legislation did not authorize the municipality to discriminate between free-standing street vendors and owner/occupant vendors, rendering the by-law ultra vires.

Consequently, the conviction for obstructing a peace officer was also set aside, as the officer had no authority to arrest the appellant for failing to comply with an order enforcing an invalid by-law.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully exposing goods on a municipal road allowance without lawful authority after selling T-shirts on a street corner.

The municipality had delegated licensing authority to the city, which only permitted owners or occupiers of abutting property to apply for a licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that the by-law was ultra vires the municipality because it was not specifically authorized by the provincial enabling legislation.

The Court found that the by-law's broad prohibition on exposing articles on sidewalks was not authorized by provisions relating to retail sales, public nuisances, or highway obstructions.