Administrative Law

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision dismissing his appeal from a Hearing Panel that denied his application for a paralegal licence.

The Hearing Panel found he did not meet the good character requirement because he had breached a previous undertaking not to provide unauthorized legal services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Appeal Panel's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for judicial review, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the proceeding was of broader public interest.

The court rejected this argument, finding the issue was entirely personal to the applicants' positions as cottage owners.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $12,500, reducing the requested amount of $16,565.50 to reflect the respondent's lack of success on a jurisdictional issue raised during the hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that the union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness during the consultation process and substantive errors in the Board's assessment of the union's investigation into a contracting-out grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of natural justice and holding that the Board reasonably concluded the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant physician sought a declaration that the hospital board's decision to revoke his privileges mid-term was automatically stayed pending his appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA).

The Divisional Court granted the declaration, finding that the hospital's by-laws and a prior agreement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant was entitled to a formal hearing.

Because a hearing was required 'otherwise by law', the SPPA applied, triggering the automatic stay provision.

The applicant insurance company sought judicial review of a Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) decision regarding the applicable interest rate on overdue Statutory Accident Benefits.

The central issue was the interpretation of transitional provisions between the old and new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedules for amounts becoming overdue after September 1, 2010.

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

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the 2% interest rate under the old regulation continued to apply to amounts that became overdue after September 1, 2010.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its rail yard.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law by failing to find a nearby rail yard was a comparable property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test and made no overriding or palpable factual error in concluding the two rail yards were not comparable due to significant differences in size, building area, and daily train traffic.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient and conduct unbecoming a physician due to an aggressive outburst at a school concert.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by refusing to sever the sexual abuse allegation, making unreasonable credibility findings, and improperly disciplining him for off-duty conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decisions on severance, credibility, and off-duty conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed his complaint that his termination was tainted by anti-union animus.

The applicant argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard of proof and made several evidentiary errors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, applied the correct legal test, and was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

The applicant school boards, as Schedule 2 employers, sought judicial review of the WSIB's refusal to disclose medical and employment information from injured workers' claim files.

The applicants sought this information to pursue subrogated claims against US Asbestos Compensation Trust Funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the right of subrogation under s. 30(11) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not confer a right of access to a worker's personal information.

The Court also held that the applicants' challenge regarding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was premature, as they had an adequate alternative remedy through the freedom of information request process.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the Ontario Securities Commission sought costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the Commission costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding no issue of broad public interest or misconduct by staff during settlement negotiations that would warrant denying costs.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss four applications for judicial review commenced by the self-represented applicant.

The applicant had failed to set any of the applications down for a hearing, resulting in delays ranging from over two to nearly five years.

The court found the delay to be unacceptable and that it caused obvious prejudice in the employment context.

The court also noted the applicant's history of abusing tribunal processes and acting as a vexatious litigant.

The motion was granted, the applications for judicial review were dismissed, and the applicant's cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding a freedom of information request made to a municipality.

The request stemmed from a line fence dispute and sought banking records and additional reasons from a Provincial Referee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the Commissioner's findings that she lacked jurisdiction to compel a federally regulated bank to produce records or to order an independent Provincial Referee to create additional reasons.

The Court also found reasonable the Commissioner's conclusion that the municipality had conducted an adequate search for records.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to change the designation of the appellants from two individuals to a ratepayers' association.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in its interpretation of its rules regarding minor errors and reviews.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the OMB's conclusion that the individuals who signed the appeal forms were the proper parties.

The Court also addressed a potential conflict of interest involving the moving party's counsel and adjourned the issue of costs.

The Independent Police Review Director brought a motion to quash a summons to witness issued to an investigator and for a declaration that counsel to the OIPRD was not required to bring the investigative file to her cross-examination.

The underlying application for judicial review sought to defer interviews of two police officers facing criminal charges until after their criminal trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence sought from the investigator and the investigative file was not relevant or necessary for the judicial review application, as it exceeded the narrow focus of the proceeding.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission to redistribute purse monies among racetracks.

The Commission had adopted a Framework to move purse funds from racetracks with profitable slot machine operations to those with more active wagering to re-invigorate horse racing.

The applicant argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction, claiming it conflicted with federal pari-mutuel regulations and interfered with existing contractual rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission had broad regulatory authority under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, that its actions did not conflict with federal regulations, and that its regulatory powers permitted incidental interference with existing contracts.

The appellants, including Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) and two unions, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that disallowed $145 million of OPG's forecast nuclear compensation costs for the 2011-2012 test period.

The appellants argued the OEB was required to presume the collective agreements were prudent when entered into and could not use hindsight to assess their reasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OEB was not restricted to a retrospective prudence review for forecast costs and was entitled to consider current market comparators to ensure rates were just and reasonable for consumers.

The court also found the OEB's reasons were adequate and its decision did not violate section 2(d) of the Charter.

The applicants continued their application to seek a contribution towards costs from the decision-maker.

The Divisional Court found that while the continuation was not an abuse of process, the applicants failed to establish a factual foundation to seek costs from the decision-maker.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding him ineligible for disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual conclusions.

The court also held that the appellant's human rights and Charter claims were not properly before it, and that his request for retroactive benefits to 2003 was precluded because earlier applications had been abandoned.

The defendants brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review.

The applicant sought review of 61 decisions made by various police oversight bodies regarding his complaints, but failed to provide specific grounds for any particular decision.

The applicant conceded he actually sought a general audit and review of policing in his community under section 25 of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding the application too broad, lacking specific grounds, and seeking relief for a non-justiciable issue, while granting the applicant liberty to bring a new, properly specified application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent school board to temporarily remove their two children from their school.

The board made the decision after the father received threatening emails from someone with access to the school's computers, which also threatened the children.

The Divisional Court found that the board's decision was reasonable given the safety concerns and the ongoing police investigation, and dismissed the application for judicial review and injunctive relief.