Administrative Law

The appellant tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as abandoned.

The appellant failed to attend the initial hearing and later left a review hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Divisional Court found no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice, holding that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion to deny the adjournment and manage its own procedure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to vacate a property so the respondent landlord could occupy it for personal use.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties had an agreement of purchase and sale, not a tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to determine if the Residential Tenancies Act applied and that its factual findings of a tenancy and good faith requirement for possession were reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness regarding late-filed evidence.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision regarding the maintenance of pay equity in predominantly female workplaces.

The Tribunal had ruled that the Pay Equity Act did not require employers to use the proxy comparison method on an ongoing basis to maintain pay equity.

The Divisional Court found that while the Act itself does not violate section 15 of the Charter, the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable because it failed to consider Charter values.

The Court held that a proportionate balancing of Charter equality rights and the Act's statutory mandate requires that women in predominantly female workplaces have continued access to male comparators through the proxy method to maintain pay equity.

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed from interim and final orders of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his request for compensation for an alleged assault and criminal conspiracy.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to issue summonses to three police officers and erred in assessing a police report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant failed to show the officers had relevant or necessary evidence, and holding that the Board's assessment of the police report involved findings of fact outside the court's jurisdiction.

A preliminary request for a publication ban was also denied.

The applicant, an Official Veterinarian, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal of the Registrar's decision to rescind her approval.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the Panel's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, which explicitly provides a right of appeal to the Panel for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The tenant appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board Member who ordered the eviction had previously acted as legal counsel against the tenant on behalf of the building's former property manager in prior eviction proceedings.

The Divisional Court found that an objective observer could reasonably assume the Member's prior knowledge of the tenant's history with the landlord might unconsciously influence her decision, particularly when making credibility findings and exercising discretion under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a hearing de novo.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her from her subsidized housing unit for allegedly throwing a rabbit off her balcony.

The Board's finding was based entirely on double hearsay evidence—a police officer reading another officer's notes of a statement made by the tenant's ex-boyfriend.

The tenant and a witness testified the rabbit jumped, but the Board preferred the hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that relying on untested, highly prejudicial hearsay evidence without giving the tenant an opportunity to cross-examine the key witness constituted a denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal's Appeal Division, which upheld a Hearing Division finding of professional misconduct and a $200,000 costs award.

The misconduct related to the appellant's inadequate preparation of Personal Information Forms for Hungarian Roma refugee claimants and his failure to adequately supervise his staff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and costs award were supported by the evidence and fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel, which had overturned the applicant's decision to waive a horse's disqualification following a positive drug test.

The applicant argued the standard of review was correctness as it involved a true question of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness, as the Panel was interpreting its home statute.

The Court found the Panel's conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in vexatious communications with Ministry of Transportation engineers regarding bridge design, while dismissing allegations of incompetence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Committee's decisions on both liability and penalty were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed, with a minor modification to the timeline for completing the Professional Practice Examination.

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding contents and additional living expenses following a residential fire.

During the hearing, the respondent insurer conceded it would pay the contents award without requiring a release, and agreed the applicants could litigate the interpretation of the additional living expenses coverage in court without being bound by the umpire's nil appraisal.

Given these concessions, the Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant, a registered social worker acting as a parenting coordinator and arbitrator, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The Committee had dismissed a complaint against her but included non-binding advice regarding the clarity of her professional communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the issues were moot because the complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee and the applicant faced no professional jeopardy.

The Court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting the College's concession that it lacked jurisdiction to investigate the decision-making process of a social worker acting as an arbitrator in family law proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision regarding the retrospective application of an amendment to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule capping attendant care benefits.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant's mother's income exceeded the maximum benefit amount, meaning the applicant would continue to receive the maximum benefit regardless of the amendment.

It was also revealed that another insurer, not the respondent fund, was liable to pay the benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as moot, finding that the outcome would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties and that the case lacked the necessary factual foundation to decide the important issues raised.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's decision regarding the use of a prior civil judgment in disciplinary proceedings against him.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the merits and a correctness standard to the issue of abuse of process.

Finding no error in the Hearing Panel's reasons, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded agreed costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the bargaining agent for four construction workers.

The applicant challenged the Board's evidentiary ruling that prevented its site superintendent from testifying about his relationship with other on-site workers not subject to the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to exclude the evidence as irrelevant was reasonable, as the applicant had expressly confirmed it was not challenging the size of the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent board refusing to grant him a second appeal hearing after he failed a clinical skills equivalency exam.

The applicant argued that the initial appeal panel did not have his typodonts before it and that he was denied procedural fairness when the board rejected his request for a second appeal based on new procedural and medical issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel had the proper materials and that the applicant should have raised his procedural and medical concerns during the exam or in his initial appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration decision that upheld his termination for fabricating a workplace violence allegation.

The application was brought over two years after the arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two preliminary grounds: the applicant lacked standing to bring the application individually as the union had exclusive representation rights and no exceptional circumstances applied, and the application was barred by unreasonable and unexplained delay.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) which found their complaints against a police officer unsubstantiated.

The Director had initially found evidence of misconduct and referred the matter for adjudication, but later reopened the investigation and reversed his decision after undisclosed communications with the police service.

The Divisional Court found that these undisclosed communications compromised the independence of the Director and breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the Director's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh investigation by a different investigator.