Administrative Law

The applicant, Chair of the City of Hamilton's LGBTQ Advisory Committee, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report finding he breached the code of conduct by disclosing confidential information, and the City Council's subsequent decision to reprimand him.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the advisory committee was not a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, 2001, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable to interpret 'local board' as including the advisory committee, and that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness throughout the investigation and council proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decisions that dismissed his appeal regarding a freedom of information request for police records.

The IPC found that the applicant's request was barred by the doctrines of issue estoppel and collateral attack, as the records at issue had already been adjudicated in a prior 2003 proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's application of issue estoppel and collateral attack was reasonable, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant police officer sought a stay of his dismissal from the police service pending judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision that confirmed his termination for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not favor the applicant.

The court noted that the applicant's losses were primarily financial and could be remedied with back pay if his judicial review application succeeded, whereas granting routine stays would contravene legislative policy.

The moving party, a municipal councillor, sought a stay pending her appeal of a judgment that found she violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and declared her council seat vacant.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the court found no irreparable harm because it ordered the municipality not to fill the vacancy pending the appeal.

The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in municipal integrity, and the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying dispute regarding a discriminatory driver's licensing policy had been resolved in the applicant's favour by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and the policy was subsequently amended.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding that the underlying legal issue—whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a standalone Charter claim—is an important issue that may be evasive of appellate review.

The mootness issue was left to be decided by the full panel hearing the application on the merits.

The Integrity Commissioner appealed a decision imposing a reprimand on a city councillor who breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council meeting regarding a debt owed to a non-profit corporation of which he was a director.

The Commissioner argued the only appropriate penalty was removal from office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that recent amendments to the Act broadened judicial discretion regarding penalties, and the application judge made no error in principle in imposing a reprimand given the mitigating factors.

The appellant, an environmental clean-up worker, suffered impairments from toxic exposure while cleaning up a chemical spill caused by a fatal collision between two trucks.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that while the use of the vac-truck met the purpose test, it did not meet the causation test as the toxic substances, not the vehicle, directly caused the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT made no errors of law in its articulation or application of the purpose and modified causation tests.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The applicants sought judicial review of Landlord and Tenant Board decisions ordering their eviction and payment of rent arrears.

The court had previously quashed the applicants' appeal of the same decisions.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it to be an improper collateral attack on the court's prior final decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from two previous decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision determining compensation for the City of Toronto's expropriation of subsurface easements for existing pipelines.

The appellant argued the Board erred by denying damages for business losses caused by delay and by failing to award interest and costs.

The appellant also sought to adduce fresh evidence to increase its claim for injurious affection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that there was no causal nexus between the expropriation and the business losses was reasonable.

The Court also refused to admit the fresh evidence, as it could have been adduced earlier and would not have affected the result.

The respondent sought costs of $61,000 following a successful appeal regarding the Ontario Municipal Board's jurisdiction to order a joint board.

The Divisional Court denied the costs request, finding that the respondent caused unnecessary steps and lengthened the proceeding by failing to raise the jurisdictional issue at first instance or during the initial leave to appeal application.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment due to back pain but no substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was correctness for questions of law, the Tribunal did not apply an incorrect test, the evidentiary findings were open to the Tribunal, and the reasons were adequate.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions and requested to set aside a Memorandum of Settlement reached at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement while impaired by medication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence of impairment and noting it lacked jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the application was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, as the applicant waited eleven months to commence the application and another seven months to perfect it.

The City of Vaughan appealed a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment, arguing that s. 20(1)(a) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act provided complete immunity against the plaintiffs' $151 million claim for malfeasance and negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged the City deliberately delayed their zoning applications, causing them to lose the opportunity to develop their land before retroactive legislative amendments made the development impossible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs' cause of action and some damages accrued prior to the legislative amendments, meaning statutory immunity did not completely bar the claim.

The court also reduced the motion judge's substantial indemnity costs award from $169,156.30 to $119,156.30.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the board of directors of a private trailer park association to bar their son from the park.

The respondent association brought a motion to dismiss the application on jurisdictional grounds.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the association is a private corporation and its board does not exercise any statutory power.

Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedures Act to judicially review the board's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent municipality could not recover approximately $2 million in unbilled property taxes from 2001 to 2007.

The municipality discovered calculation errors during a s. 331 review and sought to collect the back taxes.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 359 of the Municipal Act, 2001 applies to limit the municipality's recovery of undercharged taxes to the current and previous tax years, even for 'eligible properties' undergoing a s. 331 review.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses, which found he committed professional misconduct while providing in-home nursing care.

The misconduct included failing to maintain nursing standards and administering a liquid without patient consent.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Panel's factual and credibility findings were amply supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs of $8,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, raising issues regarding whether an occupant was a tenant and whether there was a deemed assignment of the tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the determination of whether the occupant was a tenant was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the Board's finding that the landlord failed to apply for eviction within 60 days of discovering the unauthorized occupancy, resulting in a deemed assignment under s. 104(4), was a finding of fact that could not be challenged.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a former First Nations Constable, sought judicial review of the 1998 decisions terminating her employment and her appointment as a police officer.

The application was commenced in 2007 and perfected in 2008, nearly ten years after the impugned decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for delay, finding the applicant's explanations for the delay unsatisfactory and noting that the respondents would suffer actual prejudice due to the passage of time and the unavailability of witnesses.