Administrative Law

The appellants appealed the property assessments of four car dealerships in Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board had ruled that for the purposes of equitable assessment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, similar lands in the 'vicinity' could not exceed the boundaries of the municipality.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the legislature did not intend to limit 'vicinity' to municipal boundaries in the Assessment Act, as evidenced by explicit municipal boundary limitations placed on the term in other statutes like the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The matter was remitted to the Board for redetermination.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance.

The grievance challenged the employer's practice of counting paid bereavement leave under the collective agreement towards the 10 days of unpaid personal emergency leave provided by section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the statute was reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed applications by the unions to eliminate different rates of progression through the wage grids of comparable male and female job classes, holding that the Pay Equity Act does not require the harmonization of wage grids.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that its interpretation of the Act authorized a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that the Pay Equity Act does not require or authorize a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.

The appellant, a physician licensed in New Brunswick with a 'Defined Licence' subject to ongoing clinical activity in the province, appealed a decision denying him an independent practice certificate in Ontario.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upheld the College's decision, finding that the New Brunswick licence was not 'equivalent' to an Ontario certificate under the interprovincial mobility provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'equivalent' was reasonable given Ontario's standards-based approach compared to New Brunswick's needs-based discretionary licence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant, an internationally trained teacher from France, appealed the refusal of the Ontario College of Teachers Accreditation Committee to grant her a certificate of qualification.

The Committee found she met the linguistic and degree requirements but concluded her distance education program did not meet the professional education requirement.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it focused on extraneous factors, such as the program being online and not granting a diploma, rather than assessing whether the program was substantially different from an accredited Ontario program.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Committee for reassessment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision that dismissed an appeal from an Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator had dismissed the applicant's arbitration proceeding because of a parallel civil action raising accident benefit claims from the same accident.

The Divisional Court found no error regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and held that the Director's Delegate reasonably upheld the Arbitrator's decision on choice of forum, noting the diseconomies of parallel proceedings.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy after they were found ineligible for geared-to-income rent due to alleged misrepresentation of assets.

At the Board hearing, the tenants attempted to raise the issue of harassment by the landlord's property manager, but the Board refused to consider it because it was not raised two weeks prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law because section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Board to permit a tenant to raise any issue that could be the subject of a tenant application.

The Board's order was set aside.

The applicant's motion to set aside a judgment quashing his application for judicial review was previously dismissed.

The court determined costs for that motion.

The Attorney General of Canada sought full indemnity costs, while the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,000 to the Attorney General and $7,000 to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, brought a motion to vary an order that quashed his affidavit filed in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion in part, finding that the motions judge erred in striking portions of the affidavit that went to an essential finding of fact regarding anti-union animus and alleged denials of procedural fairness.

The court reinstated specific paragraphs of the affidavit while upholding the exclusion of the remainder.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing its application to review an IIROC Hearing Panel's refusal to stay proceedings.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction and could not provide procedural fairness because it lacked the power to compel non-member witnesses, which would prevent the applicant from making full answer and defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the stay motion was premature, as any prejudice regarding missing evidence is best assessed during the hearing on the merits.

The self-represented appellant succeeded on his appeal to the Divisional Court and sought costs for the hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal and disbursements for the appeal.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs before the Tribunal.

The court awarded the appellant $941.80 in disbursements for the appeal, deducting $300 claimed for parking and meals for a group who helped him, but allowing $100 for office services.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had confirmed an overpayment of $3,050 against the respondent but ordered the Director to collect only half of it at $10 per month due to financial hardship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an overpayment is a debt due to the Crown and neither the Director nor the Tribunal has the statutory authority to forgive any part of it.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada's Appeal Panel, which upheld the revocation of his license for professional misconduct involving the misappropriation of $418,000 in trust funds.

The appellant argued that exceptional circumstances, including restitution and depression, warranted permission to resign instead of revocation, and that the panels erred by not considering this alternative.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, the panels were not obligated to consider a penalty not requested, and the revocation was well within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of disability by terminating her after she requested medical leave for breast cancer treatment.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and $2,640 in special damages.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Tribunal's factual findings or damages assessment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a former unionized employee discharged for cause, sought to set aside a single judge's order quashing her application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The single judge had quashed the application on the basis that an individual unionized employee lacks standing to seek judicial review of an arbitration award absent exceptional circumstances.

The Divisional Court panel found that the single judge correctly applied the law and that there was no evidence of deficiency in the union's representation to warrant an exception.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of discrimination against a Children's Aid Society and its employees, as well as the Tribunal's refusal to reconsider the decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on sex, family status, and disability (Multiple Sclerosis) arising from a child access dispute and a request for a mental health assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and no reasonable apprehension of bias was established.

On a preliminary issue in an appeal, the Divisional Court ruled that the Social Benefits Tribunal was not properly a party to the proceeding.

The court noted there was no separate relief claimed by the appellant that was not available against the Ministry, and no jurisdictional issue was raised.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's dismissal of her claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, errors in calculating income for income replacement benefits, and failure to consider a treatment plan.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in fact or law, nor any breach of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.