Administrative Law

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the municipal council to hold a meeting pursuant to section 357(5) of the Municipal Act to hear representations regarding a significant tax overcharge caused by a clerical error.

The municipality had refused the request, asserting it lacked authority and that statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court found that the municipality erred in law by declining its jurisdiction and that the application was made within the statutory timeframe.

The court granted the application and issued an order of mandamus compelling the council to hold the requested meeting and make a decision.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to attend a mandatory Record Keeping Workshop, and the resulting 60-day suspension.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction because it did not require proof of a formal Council resolution making the workshop mandatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that official College notices were sufficient evidence that attendance was mandatory, especially since the appellant never opened his mail from the College.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's history of ignoring College communications.

The applicant sought to introduce fresh evidence on an application for judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which had upheld an Arbitrator's decision.

The Director's Delegate had previously refused to admit the applicant's affidavit because it failed the Palmer test, as the evidence was available during the arbitration.

The Divisional Court agreed, refusing to admit the affidavit for the purposes of the application.

The court allowed certain other documents to be referenced on consent of the parties, but excluded the accompanying affidavit.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, affirmed by the Director's Delegate, awarding costs against him personally in a Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond.

The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the applicant caused expenses to be incurred without reasonable cause, and dismissed the application with costs.

The appellant, the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordering it to reimburse the respondent $1,206.50 for the airfare portion of a cancelled travel package.

The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's documentary evidence of the airfare cost and instead accepted the respondent's evidence of comparable airfare prices.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence as the best available.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing her claim for compensation for alleged criminal acts by her former boyfriend.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and discriminated against her based on her mental disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board made no errors of law and its factual findings regarding the lack of intent for assault and the unreliability of the sexual assault allegations were supported by the evidence.

The Court held the Board properly distinguished between credibility and reliability, and appropriately considered the appellant's mental illness as a factor affecting her ability to accurately perceive and recall events at the time.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the 17-month delay was inordinate and unexplained.

Furthermore, due to legislative amendments, the court noted it no longer had jurisdiction to remit the matter to the Commission or the newly constituted Tribunal.

At the opening of a judicial review hearing, the applicant moved for leave to adduce fresh evidence and subsequently sought an adjournment to bring the new evidence before the Information and Privacy Commissioner for reconsideration.

The respondents did not oppose the adjournment.

The Divisional Court vacated a prior order to permit the motion and granted the adjournment.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct for unnecessary use of force and neglect of duty.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by prematurely judging a witness's credibility, misapprehending evidence, and failing to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the evidence of the prosecution's key witness.

The misconduct finding for use of force was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The neglect of duty finding for failing to make notebook entries was upheld, but the penalty was set aside and remitted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal regarding the quantum of general damages and lost wages awarded for gender discrimination.

The Divisional Court determined that its jurisdiction was by way of judicial review and the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the Tribunal's decision on remedy was reasonable and dismissed the appeal, awarding $1,000 in costs to the respondent casino.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a four-story parking garage from the commercial property class to the residential property class.

The parking garage was used exclusively by residents of adjacent condominium towers under long-term license agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property was 'used for residential purposes' within the meaning of section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98, as the ultimate use of the property was residential parking appurtenant to living accommodations, regardless of ownership.

The applicant sought judicial review of an inquiry officer's report and a municipal resolution authorizing the expropriation of a portion of its land for a sewage easement.

The inquiry officer had concluded that the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary after considering alternatives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error of law in the inquiry officer's report.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision that directed his retroactive disability benefits be paid to his ex-wife, who was the head of their 'benefit unit' prior to their separation.

The Divisional Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that the benefits were for the benefit unit as a whole while the parties cohabited.

However, the Court found that the Director should have exercised administrative powers to ensure both parties received an equal share, given they were separated when entitlement was determined.

The Director was ordered to pay the appellant one half of the retroactive benefits.

The applicants brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration and mandamus to compel the Coroners' Council to complete its deliberations on a 1995 complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that the Coroners' Council was abolished in 1998 without grandfathering provisions.

The power to consider the complaint now rests with the Chief Coroner, who had already reviewed and dismissed the complaint in 2000.

The court concluded that the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy which had been exercised, and the requested declaration would have no practical effect.

The applicant, a former police officer, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with his discrimination complaint.

The applicant had resigned pursuant to an agreement to withdraw disciplinary charges, but filed a human rights complaint after failing to secure employment with another police force and being denied reinstatement.

The Commission dismissed the complaint as vexatious under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable given the applicant's extensive disciplinary record and the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose records provided under the Casino Rama Revenue Agreement.

The applicant argued the records contained commercial information and their disclosure would cause harm.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the records related to the administration of funds, not commercial operations, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of expected harm.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondent $1,110,348 for the expropriation of a portion of her land.

The Minister argued the Board erred by deducting development and delay costs from the 'after value' of the remaining land, contending the compensation should be lower.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly applied the 'before and after' valuation method and properly interpreted the Expropriations Act regarding market value and injurious affection.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Inquiry Officer's report under the Expropriations Act, alleging breaches of procedural fairness including the denial of an adjournment request.

The respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction because the Inquiry Officer's report is an important step affecting the property owner's interests.

However, the Court dismissed the application, finding the Inquiry Officer provided detailed reasons for denying the adjournment and did not breach the duty of procedural fairness during the hearing.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.

The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.