Administrative Law

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by applying the doctrine of res judicata to prevent a limitation defence against a particularized counterclaim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that the arbitrator's decision was a substantive legal one, not a procedural unfairness, and that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed.

The appellant, Kweku Kuffuor, brought a motion seeking to transfer files and obtain a Divisional Court number, which was effectively a request for a further extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision from November 2022.

Despite a previous extension granted by Justice H.J. Williams in August 2023 with explicit instructions, the appellant failed to comply, instead bringing multiple inappropriate motions and disregarding procedural requirements.

The court found no evidence for the appellant's claimed medical illness and noted his failure to identify any question of law for the appeal.

The motion was dismissed, and no further extensions were granted, with the court emphasizing the significant delay and the appellant's non-compliance.

The respondents were awarded $1,500 in nominal costs for their time preparing for the various motions.

This decision provides supplementary reasons to a constitutional application that previously found s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional for creating a second-generation cut-off for citizenship by descent.

The court clarifies and amends its prior order, extending the declaration of invalidity to s. 3(3)(b) of the Act, which also imposes a second-generation cut-off for those born before 1977.

It also amends the constitutional exemptions granted to specific applicants and their children, including those born after the initial hearing, and extends the deadline for issuing citizenship certificates due to logistical issues.

The appellant, S.B., appealed a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (the Board) that upheld a physician's finding of his incapacity to manage property due to Huntington's disease.

The Board applied a two-part test under the Substitute Decisions Act, finding S.B. could understand financial information but could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the appeal on a standard of palpable and overriding error for mixed questions of fact and law.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Board correctly applied the capacity test by considering S.B.'s lack of insight into his condition's impact on his finances, coupled with his history of poor financial management and vulnerability to exploitation.

The court also rejected the argument that a pre-existing Power of Attorney nullified the capacity assessment, as this issue was not raised at the initial Board hearing.

The appellant, a psychiatrist, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found the respondent capable of consenting to treatment (antipsychotic medication).

The appellant argued the Board made a legal error by applying the wrong test for capacity and palpable and overriding errors of mixed law and fact by misapprehending crucial medical evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's application of the capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, and no palpable and overriding error in its factual findings, including its assessment of the connection between the respondent's behavior and medication.

The appellant appealed a denied reopening of a deemed conviction for disobeying a stop sign, arguing inability to respond due to COVID-19 court closures.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that their inability to respond was "through no personal fault" as required by the Provincial Offences Act.

The court emphasized that the pandemic did not serve as a blanket excuse for inaction, especially given available online services, and stressed the need for appellants to provide specific details and supporting affidavits for such claims.

The defendant, Jaelen Gonsalves-Borrice, was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act for attending an outdoor social gathering during Ontario's "Stay-at-Home" order.

The defendant, self-represented, argued he was out to obtain food, which was an allowed exception.

The court found that the "obtaining food" exception was intended for individual necessity, not group socializing.

The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the exception applied, leading to a conviction.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the ORB's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and presented fresh evidence of improved stability and a developed therapeutic relationship with his community psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's original decision reasonable at the time it was made.

While admitting the fresh evidence, the majority declined to grant an absolute discharge, preferring that the ORB, as the expert body, make that determination at an already scheduled early review hearing.

A dissenting judge would have granted the absolute discharge based on the fresh evidence.

The Participating Nursing Homes (PNH) appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had directed the PNH and unions to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) for maintaining pay equity, specifically to address changes in job duties and ensure ongoing compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The PNH argued that the Act did not require them to tie their maintenance obligation to the proxy employer's historical valuation of male jobs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to ensure compliance with the Act and the necessity of ongoing comparison, including through the proxy method, to maintain pay equity.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons initiated an investigation into a psychiatrist, SJO, concerning boundary violations and the receipt of confidential information from a patient (Patient A), who was a former College employee.

SJO resisted producing Patient A's medical records, arguing patient-psychiatrist privilege and a conflict of interest for the College due to parallel investigations.

The court dismissed SJO's application for an injunction, holding that the College's statutory investigatory powers under the Regulated Health Professions Act and Health Professions Procedural Code override common law claims of privilege and patient confidentiality in this regulatory context.

The court ordered SJO to produce the patient's medical records and communications to an external investigator, with strict confidentiality protocols to limit College staff access.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged the constitutionality of sections 31-37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which authorize administrative segregation (solitary confinement) in federal penitentiaries.

The applicant sought declarations that these provisions violate sections 7, 11(h), and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal found that prolonged administrative segregation (more than 15 consecutive days) violates section 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual treatment and cannot be justified under section 1.

The court rejected arguments regarding inmates aged 18-21 and those with mental illness due to insufficient evidence, and dismissed the section 11(h) claim.

The court declared sections 31-37 of no force and effect to the extent they authorize prolonged administrative segregation.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to restrain the Toronto Police Services Board from conducting further business, alleging failures in its statutory duties and a loss of public confidence.

The Board cross-moved to strike the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court heard the applicant's interim injunction motion and dismissed it, finding that the relief sought was not justiciable as it would improperly intrude on the supervisory responsibilities of the legislature and other bodies.

The court also determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the Board continuing its statutory functions due to the compelling public interest in the provision of adequate police services.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the Board.

A mortgage broker appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim against the Crown arising from fraud perpetrated by an individual who filed a fraudulent notice of change with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, falsely identifying himself as a director and officer of a corporation.

The appellant relied on a corporation profile report obtained from the Ministry when advancing $1.8 million in loans.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that no duty of care arose at the first stage of the Anns/Cooper test.

The governing legislation did not contemplate a private law duty of care, and the payment of a fee for access to public corporate records was insufficient to establish proximity.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding that it had improperly used a post-tender addendum process as a form of "bid shopping" after accepting the respondent's bid.

The trial judge found that a contract had been formed when the municipality's council resolved to award the contract to the respondent, and that the subsequent re-tendering process and award to another bidder constituted a breach of the municipality's contractual obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that all bidders must be treated fairly in the tender process and that once a bid is accepted and a resolution issued, the municipality is obligated to issue a purchase order incorporating the agreed contract terms.

An NCR accused appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to be a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention with community living privileges.

The appellant, a 37-year-old with bipolar disorder and a lengthy criminal history, sought an absolute discharge.

The Board's majority relied on evidence that the appellant's marijuana use was potentially linked to hypomanic symptoms and could lead to a full manic episode, during which he might pose a risk of violent behavior.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion unreasonable, noting that despite a substantial risk of substance abuse and reoffending, the appellant had not committed an act of violence since 2004 and the Board's concerns were speculative and insufficiently grounded in evidence to meet the high threshold for "significant threat to public safety."

The hospital appealed a mandatory order from the Ontario Review Board requiring it to provide up to two escorted visits per year for a forensic patient to his mother's home for dinner.

The patient had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault offences and had been detained in maximum security since 1989.

The Review Board initially made the visits discretionary but amended its disposition to make them mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, finding that the board erred in law and acted unreasonably by imposing a mandatory order without discretion.

The court held that while the board may encourage the hospital to create community visit programs, the terms must remain discretionary to allow the hospital to consider staff availability, patient stability, and the consent of the person to be visited.

The applicant sought clarification on the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to issue a restraining order under subsection 36(7) of the Building Code Act, 1992, following a conviction for failing to comply with a property standards order.

The court confirmed that failure to comply with a property standards order constitutes a contravention of subsection 15.3(7) of the Act, thereby granting the justice of the peace jurisdiction under clause 36(1)(c) to issue the restraining order.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with its contempt application.

The defendant, an unlicensed taxicab driver, was charged with trespassing at Toronto Pearson International Airport contrary to section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Trespass to Property Act after entering the airport on September 30, 2009, despite having been served with a written non-entry notice on September 19, 2009.

The central legal issue was whether the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not fall within the traveller or employment exemptions to the non-entry ban, or whether the burden rests on the defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that he fell within such exemptions.

The court held that section 47(3) of the Provincial Offences Act places the burden on the defendant to prove the exemptions apply.

The defendant failed to produce evidence of travel documents or compliance with employment requirements, and was convicted.

An employer in a farming operation was convicted of failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

An employee fell and broke her leg while descending from a transport storage trailer using portable steps that left a 24-inch gap between the top step and the trailer floor.

The employer appealed, arguing that the concept of "adequacy" did not apply to farming operations and that the steps had been used safely for months without incident.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the employer failed to provide adequate access and egress to the trailer and that the gap between the steps and trailer floor was self-evidently unsafe.

The defendant, a convenience store clerk in her second day of training, was charged with selling tobacco to a person under 19 years of age, contrary to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

A test shopper, aged 17, successfully purchased cigarettes from the defendant without being asked for identification.

The defendant claimed she honestly believed the purchaser was of legal age and that she exercised due diligence given the high volume of customers and stressful circumstances.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that while her belief may have been honest, it was not objectively reasonable, and she failed to meet the required standard of being "scrupulously vigilant" in preventing sales to minors.