Administrative Law

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against his former employer for failing to file within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued his delay was caused by a severe crack cocaine addiction.

The HRTO dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing a causal link between his disability and his inability to file on time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the HRTO's requirement for medical evidence and its procedure were both reasonable and fair.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding his conviction for unnecessary exercise of authority.

The applicant argued that the hearing officer erred by applying the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) rather than a higher standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' under s. 84(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in F.H. v. McDougall established that there is only one civil standard of proof, and that police discipline hearings remain civil proceedings governed by the balance of probabilities.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to close an elementary school due to declining enrollment.

The applicants argued the decision was procedurally unfair and that the board trustees exhibited a closed mind, raising a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board substantially complied with its accommodation review policy, provided adequate disclosure, and afforded the community a meaningful opportunity to participate.

The court also held that the trustees' conduct, viewed objectively, did not meet the 'closed mind' test for bias in the context of a policy-driven decision by elected officials.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a policy grievance regarding probationary faculty workload.

The union argued the board's reasons were inadequate and incomprehensible.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the board failed to engage with the union's arguments or explain its conclusion regarding the collective agreement's exception for policy grievances.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitration award was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted board.

The appellant association appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles (DDT) fixing the southern waterfront boundaries of two lots on a registered plan of subdivision at the water's edge instead of the 'high water mark' shown on the plan.

The appellant argued the DDT exceeded her jurisdiction and that her decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the DDT reasonably interpreted her jurisdiction under the Boundaries Act to determine the true intention of the original subdivider.

The Court held that the DDT's conclusion that the subdivider intended to convey all the land he owned to the water's edge, but mistakenly believed the Crown owned the land between the high water mark and the water's edge, was supported by the evidence and reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding its application for registration as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the pre-hearing order did not compel the Registrar to register the applicant, but only to consider the application.

The Court also held that judicial review was inappropriate because the applicant had an adequate and preferable alternative remedy through a statutory appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which provides a hearing de novo.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found it contravened the Human Rights Code and ordered compensation to the respondent, a former employee.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably ignored the employment contract's termination clause and unearned commission in calculating lost wages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's power to order compensation under the Code is not limited by common law wrongful dismissal principles, and the Tribunal reasonably refused to consider the commission issue due to lack of documentation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which confirmed his treating psychiatrist's opinion that he was incapable of consenting to or refusing antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board misconstrued the evidence.

The Ontario Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board properly applied the two-part capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act and reasonably distinguished the facts from Supreme Court of Canada precedent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding zoning by-law amendments for an aggregate operation.

The court applied the Enbridge Gas test and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the explanation of inadvertence for the delay was insufficient.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal challenged the Board's factual weighing of prejudice in excluding expert testimony, which did not raise a meritorious question of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving a subdivision plan, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the hearing.

The moving party held an easement over land near the proposed subdivision but was not on the municipal tax roll.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board followed its standard notice procedures and was not required to notify an easement holder it could not have known about.

The court also found no error in the Board Chair's refusal to review and re-open the decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of its licence to operate a long-term care home.

The appellant argued that the revocation order was issued without notice, breaching procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing before the Board was a hearing de novo, which cured any prior procedural defects regarding notice.

The court also noted that any prejudice suffered by the appellant stemmed from the appointment of an interim manager, an order the appellant chose not to appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry's alleged decision to exempt a wind farm project from compliance with the Endangered Species Act regarding the Redside Dace.

The Ministry had communicated via email that there were no Redside Dace issues in the project area, and thus the proponent did not need to apply for a permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's emails did not constitute an exercise of a statutory power of decision subject to judicial review, applying the precedent from Sierra Club.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Discipline Committee Panel, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a former patient.

The panel's decision was split 3-2, with the minority finding the sexual abuse allegations unproven.

The appellant argued the majority's credibility assessments and factual findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the majority's findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference.

The respondent, Sharon Fair, brought a motion in writing to amend the Divisional Court's earlier written reasons, alleging clerical errors.

The applicant school board opposed the motion.

The court noted that the applicant had already obtained leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to amend its reasons, it would be unseemly to do so while an appeal was pending, and that justice would be better served by leaving the determination of any errors to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant local unions sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the international union had just cause to merge them with another local.

The applicants challenged the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a full hearing, and its refusal to order production of a specific report.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's choice of process was within reasonable expectations given its expertise.

Although the Court criticized the Board's failure to order production of the report, it declined to quash the decision, finding the merger was supported by an independent expert's unqualified recommendation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a non-Catholic student and his father, sought an exemption from mandatory attendance at liturgies and religious retreats at a Roman Catholic secondary school.

The school board refused, arguing these activities were not 'programs or courses of study in religious education' under section 42(13) of the Education Act.

The Divisional Court held that liturgies and retreats are planned series of events with a central purpose of religious education and experience, thus qualifying as programs under the Act.

The application for judicial review was allowed, and the student was granted the exemption.

The applicant, a certified general accountant, sought judicial review of a professional misconduct conviction based entirely on deemed admissions.

The applicant had failed to respond to a request to admit within the 20-day period due to personal stress and seeking new counsel.

The conduct committee dismissed his motion to withdraw the deemed admissions without providing reasons, and he was subsequently convicted without being permitted to call evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the conduct committee's decision was unreasonable and that the failure to provide reasons for a decision of such significance constituted a breach of natural justice.

The respondents were seasonal agricultural workers who were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after arriving in Ontario.

They remained in Ontario for medical treatment after their work permits expired and sought continued OHIP coverage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board found they were eligible for continued coverage.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plain wording of the regulation requires a valid work permit for OHIP eligibility, and the respondents ceased to be eligible once their permits expired.

The appellant lawyer, acting as an executor, advanced an unsecured loan from estate assets to an employee to placate a client.

The Law Society Hearing Panel found this to be conduct unbecoming a lawyer and a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Appeal Panel affirmed the decision.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the panels failed to properly apply the prudent investor test under section 27 of the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and the panels correctly concluded the investment was imprudent as it was motivated by personal interests rather than an overall investment strategy.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a one-year demotion in rank for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable because it gave too much weight to a 10-year-old disciplinary record and failed to consider the economic impact on his pension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably considered the gap in the disciplinary record and that the pension issue was inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal without an evidentiary record.