Administrative Law

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld a union grievance regarding a teacher laid off out of seniority order.

The board argued it retained a junior teacher because she possessed specific skills (ASL and PECS) necessary for a special education course, fulfilling its statutory duty to provide the 'best possible program.' The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion reasonable that the collective agreement's seniority provisions and the statutory requirements were complementary, and that the junior teacher did not possess recognized qualifications superior to the senior teachers.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying OHIP funding for out-of-country residential psychiatric treatment at the Austen Riggs Centre.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish that the required services were not available at an OHIP preferred provider facility.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable, noting that while the chosen facility may have been preferred by the appellant's expert, the evidence did not show that the preferred providers could not provide the necessary care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Superior Court judge's decision regarding the form of an order in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court considered whether to dismiss the application under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, noting that judicial review is not available to review decisions of Superior Court judges and that the applicant's proper recourse was an application for leave to appeal, which had already been dismissed.

The moving party Justice of the Peace brought a motion to quash the responding party's Notice of Application for Judicial Review.

The responding party sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Justice of the Peace to lay an information against a municipal prosecutor under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

Under s. 142(4) of the Provincial Offences Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act does not apply, and s. 140(1) provides that such relief must be sought in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Child and Family Services Review Board brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by the Toronto District School Board regarding a student's suspension and expulsion.

The motion was brought on the grounds of mootness and undue delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the school board's 23-month delay in commencing and perfecting the application was excessive, unexplained, and prejudicial to the tribunal.

Furthermore, the court held that the underlying dispute had been settled, rendering the application moot, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the case.

The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.

The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.

The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles determining the easterly and westerly boundary lines of his property and dismissing his request for costs.

The appellant argued the Deputy Director erred by rejecting surveyor evidence that a cedar hedge and a frame structure established the boundaries through possession.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Deputy Director reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to relate the physical occupation back to the original survey.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to one of the respondents.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) upholding the Toronto Police Services Board's refusal to disclose certain records related to her 2007 arrest.

The IPC found the withheld records contained third-party personal information exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the IPC failed to properly consider her Charter rights and the public interest override, noting that the Act is not a mechanism for criminal disclosure and the public interest exemption did not apply.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal refusing to reopen his appeal after his ODSP application was initially closed as incomplete.

The Disability Adjudication Unit subsequently accepted the application as complete but denied benefits on the merits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal properly refused to reopen the appeal as it was moot.

The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the appellant's eligibility for benefits, as there was no Tribunal decision on entitlement before it.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission confirming an inspection order that required the appellant to remedy fire alarm audibility levels in its residential building.

The appellant argued the Fire Marshal lacked jurisdiction to issue the technical guideline used by the inspector and that the inspector fettered his discretion.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Fire Marshal had statutory authority to issue the guideline, the guideline was discretionary rather than mandatory, and the Commission reasonably concluded the inspection order was necessary to ensure fire safety.

The applicant sought judicial review of a supplementary award by a Board of Arbitration that granted improved vacation benefits for part-time nurses.

The original award had increased vacation entitlements for full-time nurses but was silent on part-time nurses.

The Board issued a supplementary award, stating the omission was an oversight and rejecting the applicant's argument that it was functus officio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision that it was not functus officio was reasonable, as the omission was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the Board and the Board remained seized of the implementation of the award under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her former employer, a housing cooperative, engaged in reprisals against her for enforcing her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions, including extending her probation and terminating her employment, were motivated by her health and safety complaints.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's findings of fact and legal analysis were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a pharmacy manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to caution him and require an educational program following a serious dispensing error by a pharmacist at his pharmacy.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair, claiming he was improperly held responsible for another's mistake and denied procedural fairness regarding his discipline history and communication issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, noting the applicant's responsibility as designated manager for pharmacy policies and procedures.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing its objection to the certification of a union.

The employer argued the union discriminated on the basis of age in its constitution and other collective agreements, violating s. 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 15 was reasonable and that procedural fairness was not breached when the Board dismissed the objection without an oral hearing.

The applicants, two student associations, sought judicial review to quash the Minister's 'Student Choice Initiative' directives, which required colleges and universities to allow students to opt out of student association fees.

The Divisional Court found the directives justiciable, rejecting the government's arguments that they were immune from review as core policy decisions or exercises of the Crown's prerogative spending power.

The Court held that the directives were unlawful because they conflicted with the statutory schemes governing colleges and universities, which protect the autonomy of universities and the normal activities of college student associations.

The application was granted and the directives were quashed.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Director of Titles dismissing her application to transfer her property from the land titles system to the registry system.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Land Titles Act and converted the matter to an application for judicial review.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court upheld the Director's decision, finding the appellant failed to identify special circumstances specific to her property that would justify withdrawal from the land titles system.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review seeking criminal declarations and damages against various public officials, including the late Mayor Rob Ford, based on an unanswered email.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the application raised no recognizable legal issue or government decision subject to judicial review, the court dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's alleged failure to release a decision on his motion for interim relief.

After the tribunal released its decision, the court considered whether to dismiss the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the application was rendered moot by the tribunal's decision and that the applicant's remaining challenges to the tribunal's processes lacked any legal basis.

The application was dismissed as frivolous with no costs.

The applicant residents' associations sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that approved a revised development proposal to demolish three houses and build a low-rise apartment in a Heritage Conservation District.

The applicants argued the tribunal made errors of law by deferring to the City's demolition approval under the Ontario Heritage Act, treating demolition as conservation, and failing to assign a higher heritage rating to one of the houses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the applicants' challenges were directed at findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not subject to appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying application challenged the Minister's decision to invoke an exception under the Environmental Bill of Rights, bypassing public consultation for revoking the cap and trade program by claiming the recent provincial election was a substantially equivalent process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the scope of the Minister's exception power remains a live controversy despite the subsequent repeal of the relevant legislation.

The court further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the application to provide clarity on the statutory exemption.