Administrative Law

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his appointment as an assistant bailiff for the City of Toronto.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's finding that the 2004 legislation created a new class of assistant bailiff with retrospective effect.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) that dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct.

The officer argued the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that OCCPS applied an incorrect legal test to determine when sufficient facts came to the Chief's attention, rendering its decision unreasonable.

The Court further held that the officer's guilty plea did not waive his right to appeal the jurisdictional defect, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a statutory tribunal.

The appellant owns a former cruise ship, the Jadran, which operates as a floating restaurant berthed in Lake Ontario.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed the ship as a 'structure' and the lakebed it occupies as 'land' for taxation purposes.

The appellant appealed the application judge's decision upholding the assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions that the ship is a structure, that it occupies land owned by the Port Authority, and that the appellant is in possession of that land.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the interpretation of 'temporary lay-off' under s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The union argued that the employer's lay-off of over 200 employees became a termination after 13 weeks, triggering mass termination notice requirements.

The arbitrator, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in London Machinery, held that s. 56(2)(c) applied as a stand-alone provision because the collective agreement provided recall rights, meaning the lay-off could extend up to 35 weeks without becoming a termination.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation was defensible and supported by binding precedent.

The appellant, a taxi driver who was the victim of a serious knife attack, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $20,000 for pain and suffering.

He had sought between $90,000 and $150,000, but the governing statute restricts the Board to a maximum lump sum award of $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and that the Board exercised its discretion appropriately.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that denied its grievance regarding the interpretation of a contracting out provision in a collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to answer all questions or provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, consistent with his findings of fact, and sufficiently complete to allow for proper analysis.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that allowed the respondent to convert a 161-unit affordable rental apartment building into a condominium.

The municipality argued the Board erred in its application of the Planning Act and disregarded provincial and municipal policies protecting rental housing.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision for failing to consider the specific city-wide housing policies and condominium conversion policies in the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 and the municipality's Official Plan.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been terminated for professional misconduct involving special needs students.

The arbitration board found the teacher's conduct warranted a significant disciplinary response but not termination, effectively imposing a four-and-a-half-year suspension without pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's decision to give the teacher a second chance fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her claim for nervous shock after witnessing her brother's death.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for questions of law is correctness.

The Court found that the Board applied the correct standard of proof and properly concluded that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a recognizable psychiatric or psychosomatic condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a manager of a hazardous waste facility, sought judicial review of a justice of the peace's order compelling him to submit to an interview and produce documents under s. 163.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the order, finding that the statutory provision authorizes investigators to use devices and techniques but does not explicitly confer the power to compel third parties to answer questions or produce documents.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission issued directions that would significantly reduce the services and teaching capacity of Hôpital Montfort, Ontario's only francophone general hospital.

The applicants sought judicial review, arguing the directions violated s. 15 of the Charter, administrative law principles, and the unwritten constitutional principle of the protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Charter and administrative law arguments but granted the application on constitutional grounds.

The Court held that the protection of minorities is a fundamental organizing principle of the Constitution, and the Commission failed to act according to law by ignoring the broader institutional role of Montfort in preserving the Franco-Ontarian minority culture.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(b) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to set aside or vary an order of Matlow J. The order required the Ontario Human Rights Commission to deliver documentary evidence in a sealed container to the Registrar, to remain sealed until the panel hearing the application directed otherwise.

The applicant sought to have the container opened immediately for her access.

The Divisional Court found no basis to vary or set aside the order and dismissed the motion.

Two newspaper reporters applied for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner upholding the refusal by the Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose various police records.

The requested records included the names of all police officers, public complaints data, disciplinary tribunal dockets, and criminal charges against officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Officers' decisions applying exemptions for safety, privacy, and employment-related matters were reasonable and correct.

The appellant employer appealed a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry, which found it liable for racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The employer argued the Board erred by not dismissing the complaints due to institutional delay, by refusing to apply issue estoppel to a prior labour arbitration decision, and by imposing direct employer liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the test for delay, properly rejected issue estoppel due to a lack of mutuality of parties, and reasonably inferred a causal connection between the poisoned environment and the employee's termination.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct relating to the misappropriation of narcotics.

During the discipline hearing, it was revealed that a panel member served on a hospital committee with the principal witness against the appellant, but this was not disclosed until deliberations had begun.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the undisclosed relationship and subsequent conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias that vitiated the panel's decision.

Given the circumstantial evidence, poor hospital record-keeping, and the passage of time, the Court quashed the decision and ordered a stay of proceedings rather than a rehearing.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Board of Inquiry, which held that it had jurisdiction to continue hearing a human rights complaint after the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew its carriage of the proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that under the Human Rights Code, a Board of Inquiry may not proceed in the absence of the Commission.

The Court held that the Commission cannot delegate carriage of the complaint to the complainant, and that the public interest representation of the Commission is required for the hearing to proceed.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board order regarding its jurisdiction to extend the boundaries of an adopted official plan amendment and to change the proposed uses.

The Divisional Court held that the Board has jurisdiction to do both as a matter of general principle, though it could exceed its jurisdiction by acting unreasonably.

However, the court quashed the appeal as premature because the Board had not yet made a decision on the specific modifications.

The appellant physician sought a stay of an order by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons suspending his certificate of registration for a minimum of 12 months based on a finding of incompetence.

The court held that under s. 61(7) of the Health Disciplines Act, an order suspending a licence for incompetence takes effect immediately, and the court has no jurisdiction to grant a stay pending appeal.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, but the appeal was ordered to be expedited.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review under sections 2 and 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court was not persuaded to interfere with the order under appeal and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $700 for disbursements to the respondent.