Administrative Law

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following the destruction of her cottage by fire.

The umpire determined the replacement cost based on the respondent insurer's appraiser's estimate of the cottage's square footage, which relied on actual post-fire measurements, rather than the applicant's appraiser's reliance on a pre-purchase valuation report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision was reasonable and justified by the evidence, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought to bring an application for judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision three years and eight months after it was released.

The Tribunal had previously ruled that the applicant's civil action against his employer was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court applied the prior regime for judicial review delay, finding the applicant's explanations for the delay insufficient and concluding that prejudice to the respondents was presumed.

The motion to proceed with the application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario's Appeal Panel upholding a finding that she breached the Code of Ethics.

The applicant had included inaccurate property tax and local improvement charge information in a real estate listing without a sufficient public disclaimer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Discipline Panel reasonably excluded the applicant's proposed expert evidence because it went to the ultimate issue and was unnecessary.

The Court also held that the Discipline Panel's finding of professional misconduct was reasonable, as the applicant failed to clearly communicate that the tax figures were unverified estimates.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration decision upholding the dismissal of an employee for a severe workplace safety violation.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably failed to consider the employee's ten years of pre-seniority service as a mitigating factor when declining to substitute a lesser penalty under section 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and disciplinary grid, which distinguished between seniority and service, and reasonably concluded the egregious nature of the safety violation outweighed the mitigating factors.

The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.

The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the moving party was ordered to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to each of the responding parties.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding the assignment of bargaining unit work to management personnel.

The arbitrator found that a bargaining unit member was available for the assignment, despite not meeting the specific conditions of the Auxiliary Board, and that the employer breached the collective agreement by using a manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and finding of availability were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision directing it to pay wages to a former employee.

The employer argued the Board's credibility findings were inconsistent and its decision unreasonable regarding the employee's refusal of a call-in shift.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings and noting that a trier of fact may accept parts of a witness's evidence while rejecting others.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed its motion for directions.

The moving party had argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a prior consent order regarding a zoning by-law amendment because the relevant 'bonusing regime' under the Planning Act had been repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed the motion on procedural grounds because it should have been brought as a request for review under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules and was out of time.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension and other remedial terms.

The appellant had been duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics due to her failure to take basic professional steps.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review and found no error in principle, concluding that the penalty was not clearly unfit and was well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the colossal scale of the professional shortcomings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the tenancy was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under s. 5(i) because the tenant was required to share a kitchen and bathroom with the landlord's daughter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's interpretation of the exemption or its factual findings regarding the daughter's residency and use of the shared facilities.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the dismissal of his appeal by a case management judge.

The appeal had been dismissed for delay after the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with case management scheduling orders to perfect his appeal.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding that the case management judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal without a formal motion, that filing an amended notice of appeal does not restart the time for perfection, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed its application for certification of a construction industry bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably refused to order a representation vote and lacked discretion to dismiss the application under s. 128.1(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant did not wish to represent the appropriate province-wide bargaining unit and that determining employee support was impossible due to the passage of time caused by the applicant's litigation strategy.

The Court held the Board reasonably interpreted s. 128.1(13) as conferring discretion to dismiss an unmeritorious application to avoid leaving it in limbo.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision ordering a hospital to disclose a linen services contract and a memorandum summarizing its terms.

The applicant argued the records contained financial information supplied in confidence during a bid process, exempting them from disclosure under s. 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator reasonably concluded that the contract was the product of negotiations and the information was mutually generated, not supplied in confidence.

The applicant political party sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's responses to its complaints regarding the exclusion of its candidates from third-party organized election debates.

The applicant argued that the exclusion constituted illegal campaign contributions and violated Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Chief Electoral Officer's disposition of the complaints did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision and did not affect any legal rights or privileges, and therefore was not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a medical resident, was suspended and required to attend a health program.

He unsuccessfully appealed the suspension through the university's internal processes before filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant had unfairly split his case.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review post-Vavilov and upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not unreasonable to find that duplicative proceedings regarding the same underlying facts were unfair to the university.

The applicant brought a motion to add items to the record of his application for judicial review, to require an unredacted record, and to cross-examine the respondent's staff member.

The court dismissed the motion to adduce new evidence not before the decision-maker, except for one document admitted on consent.

The request for an unredacted record was dismissed with directions provided for handling privacy redactions.

The request to cross-examine the staff member was dismissed as it is expressly precluded by the Police Services Act.

The tenant appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction orders for rent arrears and personal use.

The Divisional Court had issued a stay of the eviction orders pending the appeal.

The landlord breached the stay order by enlisting the police to evict the tenant.

The court found the landlord in contempt, which he purged by paying $4,000 for the tenant's expenses and reinstating the tenant.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found no error of law or denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's virtual review hearing or its factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed and the eviction orders were restored, subject to a 30-day stay.