Administrative Law

The self-represented appellant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to stay a tax sale of his property and challenge a property tax assessment by MPAC.

The appellant had previously missed the deadline to appeal the assessment to the Assessment Review Board and had a related Small Claims Court action dismissed or stayed.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from MPAC, an out-of-time appeal from the ARB without leave on a question of law, or an appeal from an interim Small Claims Court order.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review and a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General of Ontario to challenge court orders made in a separate mortgage dispute.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the application was an impermissible collateral attack on prior court decisions that should have been challenged through the available appeal routes, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its employees were provincially regulated for labour relations purposes.

The applicant, a track welding company performing work primarily for interprovincial railways, argued its operations fell under derivative federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board correctly applied the derivative jurisdiction test.

The court found the applicant's work involved maintenance of railway infrastructure rather than the operation of the railways themselves, and thus did not meet the exceptional threshold for federal jurisdiction.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review regarding the revocation of her mother's short-term rental licence.

The mother was deceased, and the moving party relied on a power of attorney and a will to proceed.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to consider dismissing the proceeding.

The court found that the moving party lacked standing, a deceased person cannot hold a non-transferable licence, and the relief sought was unavailable.

The proceeding was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits following two workplace injuries.

The tribunal had allowed his appeal in part for a temporomandibular joint injury but denied benefits for headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and psycho-traumatic disability, finding they were unrelated to the workplace incidents.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, concluding that the tribunal's decisions were coherent, transparent, and firmly based on the medical evidence.

The appellant, a nurse practitioner, appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Committee found she had improperly issued 396 COVID-19 vaccine medical exemption letters to clients who merely watched an informational slide presentation.

The appellant argued she was acting as an educator providing informed consent and relying on public health directives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that the letters were medical exemptions and that the appellant breached multiple standards of practice.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias.

The Professional Conduct Committee of the CPAO sought judicial review of an internal Appeal Decision that ordered the readmission of a former accountant whose license was revoked following criminal convictions for fraud.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Appeal Panel failed to conduct a proper reasonableness review of the initial Reconsideration Decision.

Instead of deferring to the Reconsideration Panel's assessment of the applicant's remorse and rehabilitation, the Appeal Panel impermissibly reweighed the evidence.

Furthermore, the Appeal Panel failed to consider whether readmission was consistent with maintaining public trust in the profession.

The Appeal Decision was set aside and the Reconsideration Decision denying readmission was restored.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a stay and the granting of the respondents' motion to strike, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded as this was public interest litigation.

The court held that the public interest nature of the case did not exempt the applicant from costs rules, especially given the voluminous record and the significant economic interests at stake.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 for the proponent and $12,500 for the City, payable by the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application as abandoned.

The Tribunal had directed the applicant to resubmit documents it deemed faint and illegible, and dismissed the application when he allegedly failed to comply.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because the documents, while faint, were clearly legible.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The applicant sought judicial review of an administrative decision by a judge dismissing her misconduct complaints against two Deputy Judges and a Referee.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying orders, failed to plead claims against several respondents, and contained only bare allegations of Charter infringements and procedural unfairness without supporting facts.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a 90-day suspension of pay imposed by City Council for breaching the Code of Conduct.

The sanction followed an Integrity Commissioner's report finding the applicant made false statements and mishandled personal information at a town hall meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the factual findings were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Charter claims, noting they were not raised before the decision-maker and that the limits on her expression were justified by the need to protect public trust and staff dignity.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a four-month suspension.

The misconduct involved the appellant's role as a designated manager in overseeing the ordering of veterinary drugs from a wholesaler through a veterinarian's account using a false name, contrary to regulations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's evidentiary rulings, its interpretation of the relevant regulations, or its assessment of the penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal had concluded her whole person impairment rating was 49%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's assessment of a 0% impairment for the spine and its correction of the upper extremity impairment calculation on reconsideration were reasonable and within its statutory authority to apply the AMA Guides.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a decision by Legal Aid Ontario denying him duty counsel services and issuing a legal aid certificate instead.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the underlying application lacked apparent grounds for relief because the decision was not of a sufficiently public character to attract judicial review.

The court found that the applicant met the test for an extension, noting the minimal delay, lack of prejudice, reasonable explanation for the delay due to filing portal issues, and the existence of apparent grounds for relief.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The Law Society of Ontario requested the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to review a decision not to investigate a complaint.

The applicant submitted he was seeking to quash the decision and have it redone, not specifically requesting an investigation.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1, finding that while there may be a valid jurisdiction issue, it should be raised and determined within the normal course of the application rather than through the summary Rule 2.1 process.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the quantum of damages for warranted defects in the exterior brick cladding of their new home.

The Tribunal had awarded $16,724 to repair the front of the house, rejecting the appellants' claim for over $200,000 to rebrick the entire home.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellants argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the test from Ducas and by taking a functional rather than prescriptive approach to the Building Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Ducas test inapplicable to the one-year warranty at issue and holding that the Tribunal properly assessed the scope of damages based on the evidence.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a Hearing Division finding of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when his request for an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Division applied the correct standard of review and made no error in concluding that the Hearing Division's refusal to grant an adjournment did not breach procedural fairness.

The court also upheld the findings of professional misconduct and the penalty of an indefinite suspension.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review regarding Service Ontario's refusal to renew her licence plate due to unpaid parking tickets, seeking a waiver of the fees and $20,000,000 in damages.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering dismissal of the application as frivolous.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, the screening officers' decisions were not subject to judicial review, and the proper parties were not named.

The application was summarily dismissed as frivolous with no order as to costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting attendant care benefits to the respondent, who suffered from severe autism and was injured in a minor motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias because the LAT adjudicator had a history of, and continued, public advocacy for autism caregivers after his appointment.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the adjudicator's ongoing advocacy efforts following his appointment raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in a case specifically determining attendant care benefits for an autistic claimant.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.