Administrative Law

The applicant, a reserve retailer, sought judicial review of a First Nation Council's decision to allocate tax-exempt cigarettes to another business, arguing the business was not located on the reserve.

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

The applicant failed to show a causal relationship between the alleged prejudice and the challenged action, and the issue raised was not a serious justiciable issue affecting the public interest.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which had dismissed their appeal from a city council decision denying their proposed 91-lot residential development in a coastal wetland area.

The applicants alleged numerous errors of law, including the Board's application of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement instead of the 2005 version, its interpretation of 'negative impacts' and 'limited residential development', and procedural fairness issues regarding the admission of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the 2014 PPS, reasonably interpreted the planning policies, and that any procedural errors regarding expert evidence did not meet the test for granting leave.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Independent Police Review Director and the Chief of Police classifying an unjustified strip search by a police officer as misconduct 'not of a serious nature' under the Police Services Act.

The applicant argued that an unjustified strip search must always be classified as serious misconduct and that the failure to hold a disciplinary hearing breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Director and Chief have statutory discretion to assess the seriousness of misconduct based on the specific circumstances.

The court found the decisions were reasonable given the facts, including that the search was conducted privately, without touching, and in accordance with policy, and that no hearing was required once the misconduct was reasonably deemed not serious.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate upholding an arbitration decision that denied him Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) under the 1994 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Delegate's interpretation of s. 20.1 was unreasonable and that the provision violated s. 15 of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of age.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable and that the applicant did not have a vested right to LECBs.

The Court also upheld the Delegate's finding that s. 20.1 did not create a discriminatory distinction based on age.

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

The applicant had been reinstated by an arbitrator without back pay after a three-year delay in the arbitration decision.

The union initially sought judicial review to compel the arbitrator's reasons but abandoned the application once reasons were provided, concluding it was unlikely to succeed.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that the union acted reasonably to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario regarding a freedom of information request for police records.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant's response failed to provide an arguable case or clarify the unintelligible grounds for relief.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they engaged in insider trading after receiving material non-public information from an administrative assistant at an investment bank.

The Commission relied on circumstantial evidence, including the proximity of telephone calls to highly profitable trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Commission's inferences were reasonable and that the use of compelled examination transcripts was procedurally fair.

The Court also upheld the sanctions, which included trading bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.

The moving party, State Farm, brought a motion to quash a judicial review application commenced by the responding party, Waldock, regarding two interlocutory orders made by delegates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The court granted the motion to quash the judicial review of a procedural order regarding the appeal record, finding it premature.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the judicial review of an order that pre-emptively enjoined the responding party from seeking clarification from the arbitrator, finding exceptional circumstances and a potential breach of natural justice that warranted judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found she made false reports of abuse against a fellow teacher and revoked her teaching certificate.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the serious nature of falsely accusing a colleague of abuse.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought to set aside an order quashing its application for judicial review of a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

The motions judge had quashed the application on the grounds of prematurity because the applicant had appealed the approval to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside, agreeing that the application was premature as the administrative appeal process under the Environmental Protection Act had not yet been completed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision upholding a $17,500 costs award against him.

The costs were awarded after the applicant abandoned his third application for a paralegal license just days before the good character hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Hearing Panel retained jurisdiction to award costs despite the abandonment, properly considered the applicant's history of abandoning and reinstating applications as an abuse of process, and afforded the applicant procedural fairness.

The court fixed costs of the judicial review at $5,000.

The City of Hamilton appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board denying a request to update the load profile for the street lighting class to reflect reductions from an LED conversion program.

The City argued the Board failed to provide adequate reasons and failed to implement provincial energy conservation policies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to selectively update load profiles without data for all classes was reasonable and grounded in fairness, and did not conflict with provincial conservation policies.

The applicant employer brought a motion to stay an arbitrator's interim award pending judicial review.

The employer had disciplined an employee, who grieved the discipline.

The employer subsequently withdrew the discipline and argued the arbitrator lost jurisdiction as the matter was resolved.

The arbitrator found there were remaining remedial issues and retained jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious question to be determined because the judicial review application was premature and would result in fragmentation of the administrative process.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College finding that he breached the Advertising Regulation.

The applicant was listed as the 'Associate Medical Director' of a clinic that offered a Groupon deal for Botox, though he only provided retinal surgery and was unaware of the ad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable for the Board to conclude that by allowing his name to be associated with the clinic in a directorial capacity, he permitted himself to be associated with the advertising.

The applicant, an Advanced Care Paramedic, sought judicial review of a medical director's decision to decertify him following an investigation into a call where a patient later died.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the medical director did not follow the advisory recommendations of the Paramedic Practice Review Committee and acted as investigator, prosecutor, and decision-maker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was provided with adequate notice, disclosure, opportunities to respond, and reasons, and that the process did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Surveyor General of Ontario confirming the location of a road allowance under the Surveys Act.

The dispute arose because the confirmed location placed the road allowance on the portion of the appellants' property bordering water, thereby removing their riparian status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Surveyor General had jurisdiction, the fact-finding hearing process was procedurally fair, and her substantive conclusions regarding historical survey evidence and natural boundaries were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a federal crown corporation operating a national passenger railway, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of its Ottawa passenger station for municipal taxation purposes.

The applicant argued the station had only nominal value due to the lack of a competitive market for passenger rail, while the respondent argued for a hypothetical market value.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's decision to create a hypothetical market and noting the case involved an important question of law regarding the valuation of railway stations.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board found that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-unionized contractor, but denied an award of damages because the union suffered no loss, as only a non-union contractor was capable of performing the specialized work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on remedy was owed deference and was not outside the range of reasonable outcomes.

The appellant appealed an eviction and rent arrears order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board, as well as a subsequent order upholding it on review.

The appellant argued she was a member of the housing co-operative, not a tenant, and that she had obtained money orders for the rent which were never cashed.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent's agent engaged in sharp practice at the review hearing by misrepresenting the appellant's position and the resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

The Court set aside both orders due to breaches of procedural fairness and natural justice.