Administrative Law

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision ordering his surrender to the United States to face fraud charges.

The applicant argued that his significant health problems would not be adequately treated in the Florida prison system and that the Minister should have obtained formal assurances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the Minister did not act unreasonably in relying on information from United States authorities and in declining to request specific assurances as a precondition to surrender.

The applicant applied for judicial review of the government's response to the recommendations of the Deputy Judges Remuneration Commission.

The Commission had recommended significant increases to the per diem rate for deputy judges.

The government accepted the initial increase for 2005 but rejected the subsequent annual increases, substituting lower increases based on economic conditions and public sector compensation trends.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government's response met the constitutional standard of rationality as it articulated legitimate reasons based on a reasonable factual foundation and respected the commission process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision suspending his racing licenses for ten years and imposing a $20,000 fine for administering a performance-enhancing drug (EPO) to a horse.

The applicant argued his confession to investigators was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the statement was admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and statutory compulsion, and that the common law confession rule and section 7 of the Charter did not apply to these administrative proceedings.

The court also upheld the penalty as reasonable given the need for general deterrence in the horse racing industry.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Director's Delegate had overturned a preliminary arbitration order that found the respondent insured's application for mediation was time-barred.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate was reasonable in concluding that the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule did not begin to run until the insurer provided notice of refusal to pay following a negative Designated Assessment Centre report, rather than from the initial notice of stoppage of benefits.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its grievances.

The Union argued that work paid as maintenance under the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement was actually construction and should have been paid at a higher scale under the Principal Agreement.

The Board found the Union was estopped from relying on the Principal Agreement because its business agent agreed the work would be done under the GPMA.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's application of estoppel, despite section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, was reasonable and dismissed the application.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant against the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The respondent argued that the transcript costs should be disallowed because it had conceded the main legal issue.

The court rejected this argument, finding the facts remained central to the respondent's alternative position.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,733.86 plus GST.

The applicants sought judicial review of Laurentian University's decision to deny them admission to graduate studies.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was discretionary and did not attract certiorari or mandamus.

Applying the factors from Khan v. University of Ottawa, the court found that only minimal procedural fairness was required in this context.

The court concluded there was no flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice and dismissed the application, rejecting allegations of bias or retaliation.

The appellants appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects.

They argued they were denied a fair hearing because the independent legal counsel retained to advise the Committee effectively took over the conduct of the hearing.

The Divisional Court agreed, noting numerous instances where the Committee's counsel interrupted the appellants' counsel, purported to speak for the Committee, and engaged in heated arguments.

The findings of guilt were set aside and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

Several police officers sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension of time to serve notices of disciplinary hearings under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The officers argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide full disclosure of the investigative brief, denying an oral hearing, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's procedure met the minimal requirements of fairness for an administrative, pre-charge decision and that the Board's decision to allow the delay was reasonable given the unprecedented complexity of the underlying criminal investigation.

Following a successful judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, the applicant employer sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent union argued for a lower amount in line with typical labour relations cases, while the Board argued no costs should be awarded against it.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $4,000 payable by the union, noting that labour relations cases in the court are generally low-cost.

No costs were awarded against the Board as it only addressed the standard of review.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding development projects in a mixed industrial-residential area.

The Board had approved predominantly residential developments, rejecting the municipality's policy requiring a minimum non-residential component to preserve employment lands.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's failure to properly consider the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statements, and the Official Plan raised questions of law of sufficient importance, and there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of neglect of duty for delaying a detainee's right to counsel for 90 minutes after the initial justification for the delay (officer safety) had passed.

The Hearing Officer imposed a reprimand, but the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services substituted a six-month reduction in rank.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable, as it failed to consider mitigating factors and wrongly concluded that a reprimand was an unavailable penalty for a Charter breach.

The appeal was allowed and the reprimand restored.

The applicants, real estate brokers, applied for judicial review of decisions by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Discipline and Membership Appeals Committees, which found they acted unprofessionally in purchasing property from a client without proper disclosure or advising her to seek independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court determined the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Committees' conclusions that the applicants breached the Code of Ethics and were not entitled to costs were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Town of Oakville sought leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding heritage buildings.

The first decision rescinded an earlier order cross-appointing a Conservation Review Board member to the panel.

The court granted leave to appeal this decision, finding reason to doubt its correctness given the statutory provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The second decision directed the Town to permit the relocation of two heritage buildings.

The court denied leave to appeal this decision, finding the Board committed no error of law in its assessment of conservation principles.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to the Divisional Court.

The OMB had dismissed a joint motion to dismiss a draft plan of subdivision without a hearing, finding it had jurisdiction despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision because it failed to apply principles of statutory interpretation regarding vested rights and jurisdiction.

The court also found the issue of the OMB's jurisdiction in light of collateral statutory amendments to be of sufficient public importance.

The applicant, Geranium Corporation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner exempting a letter submitted by a resident to the Town of Innisfil from disclosure under s. 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The applicant argued that the non-disclosure deprived it of knowing allegations made against it prior to a town council decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commissioner's interpretation of MFIPPA reasonable.

The court noted that the Commissioner's decision did not prevent the Ontario Municipal Board from ordering production of the document in related proceedings.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought an application regarding an ongoing tribunal hearing involving the Sleep Disorders Centres.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that no significant harm or breach of natural justice would occur by refusing to decide the issue, especially since the report in question had already been disclosed.

The Court concluded that all related issues should be determined by the tribunal based on a full and complete record.

The appellant, suffering from liver cancer, was denied a liver transplant in Ontario as he did not meet the medical criteria.

He obtained a living-related liver transplant in England for $450,000 and sought reimbursement from OHIP.

OHIP denied the claim because the treatment was not 'generally accepted in Ontario as appropriate for a person in the same medical circumstances' under s. 28.4(2) of Regulation 552.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board upheld the denial.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding that the Regulation did not violate s. 7 of the Charter because the state's refusal to fund out-of-country treatment did not constitute a deprivation of life or security of the person.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's interim award ordering it to make ex gratia payments to a grieving employee whose sick leave benefits had been terminated.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act as granting jurisdiction for the interim award was unreasonable, his alternative reliance on the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The interim award was upheld and the application for judicial review was largely dismissed.