Administrative Law

The appellant, a minor, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying her income support under the Ontario Works Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's grandmother, with whom she lived, met the definition of a 'parent' because she demonstrated a settled intention to treat the appellant as a child of her family.

The Tribunal also found no special circumstances existed to justify assistance.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

The appellant appealed a final order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him so the landlord could demolish the building.

The appellant argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by determining he was not a co-owner of the property, an issue he had raised in a concurrent Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act, which required assessing if he occupied the unit as a co-owner.

The Court held the Board's conclusion was reasonable and would not cause a multiplicity of proceedings, as the Board only determined legal ownership for tenancy purposes, leaving the Superior Court to adjudicate the appellant's claim for an equitable interest.

The appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because he had commenced a Superior Court action claiming a 50% ownership interest in the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a tenant and to order eviction, as he was not a registered co-owner and no final court determination of co-ownership existed.

The Court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, finding no denial of procedural fairness where the appellant voluntarily chose not to attend the hearing.

The applicant Employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reclassified the Employment Relations Officer position to a higher level.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator failed to bifurcate the hearing, depriving it of the opportunity to lead evidence on the proper classification level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Employer should have known classification was in issue given the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing without objection.

The applicant sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision dismissing his request to vary or revoke a previous arbitration award that denied him statutory accident benefits.

The applicant argued that new medical reports diagnosing a traumatic brain injury constituted fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the director's delegate reasonably concluded that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and, in any event, did not address the functional eligibility criteria required for the benefits sought.

The University of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a decision finding that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review brought by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.

The Association sought to challenge the compensation paid to two non-unionized employees, arguing it violated wage restraints under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the application, holding that the compensation decision was essentially a private employment matter lacking the requisite public law dimension for judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a private arbitration decision made under a LAWPRO policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application at the outset for prematurity and lack of jurisdiction.

The court noted that the proper route to challenge a private arbitration award is through an appeal or an application to set aside the award under the Arbitration Act, 1991, which must be brought before a single judge of the Superior Court.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions dismissing her application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval granted to an adjacent asphalt plant, and refusing to reconsider that dismissal.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the applicant's submissions regarding zoning, noise, and past environmental breaches.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that their long-term cabin leases were exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under the seasonal or temporary accommodation exemption.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable, as the cabins were permanent structures subject to 20-year leases and were used as secondary homes, not temporary vacation accommodations.

The court declared that the Act applies to the leases and that the appellants reside in a land lease community.

The Law Society sought judicial review of a disclosure order made by the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division during an interlocutory suspension proceeding.

By the time the judicial review was heard, the Law Society had complied with the disclosure order and the interlocutory suspension had been imposed, rendering the disclosure issue moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issue, finding that the matter should have proceeded through the Tribunal's internal appeal process and that the Tribunal should be allowed time for its jurisprudence to evolve.

The tenant appellants appealed an eviction order and a subsequent LTB order denying their request for a review.

The tenants had attended the LTB for their hearing but left during a lunch break because the elevators broke down, and they could not climb 18 flights of stairs due to a disability.

The LTB member dismissed their review request without a hearing, finding they should have telephoned the Board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB denied the tenants natural justice by failing to hold a review hearing to consider their evidence regarding their inability to participate.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a review hearing.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The revocation followed a series of incidents involving workplace harassment of a nurse and unauthorized access to her personal health records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Board applied the correct test under the Public Hospitals Act, did not improperly reverse the burden of proof regarding the appellant's mental health claims, and reached a reasonable and proportionate decision given the egregious nature of the past misconduct.

The applicant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits suspended and later cancelled by the Director for failing to provide requested information.

The Social Benefits Tribunal rescinded both decisions, finding the Director failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

When the Director failed to reinstate the benefits, the applicant sought an order of mandamus.

The Divisional Court granted declarations that the Director breached his public duty by failing to reinstate the benefits, but declined to issue mandamus for the payment of arrears, finding that retroactive payments were within the Director's discretion and that the applicant had an alternative remedy through a civil action.

The appellant, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessed value of a grocery store property.

The Board had determined the current value of the property as development land but then drastically reduced the assessed value by applying the equitable principle under the Assessment Act, comparing it only to two other grocery stores.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law and rendered an unreasonable decision by failing to consider all points of comparison to determine 'similar lands' and by failing to properly apply the equitable principle.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that ordered a new discipline hearing.

The OCPC had found that the Hearing Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to provide minimum assistance to the unrepresented public complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the OCPC's refusal to admit fresh affidavit evidence about off-the-record events.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the complainant needed to prove actual prejudice, affirming that a breach of procedural fairness carries inherent prejudice and denies a meaningful role in the proceeding.

The applicant brought a motion for procedural relief in his application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

He sought to have his wife represent him or be added as a party, production of his opening submissions to the Board, production of 750 pages of payroll records, and to strike the respondents' facta.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding no legal basis for spousal representation, noting the Board record was complete, and holding that disagreement with a factum is not grounds to strike it.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer.

The applicant sought judicial review of a procedural ruling made by its Discipline Committee mid-hearing.

The Committee had ruled that the applicant must comply with the notice and consent requirements of s. 35 of the Mental Health Act before tendering psychiatric records as evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing administrative proceeding.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of sexual abuse and revoking her license.

The finding of sexual abuse was based on a romantic kiss with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the doctor-patient relationship had ended prior to the kiss and that the Committee breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a letter from the patient after the close of evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the extensive history of boundary violations and professional misconduct.

The university brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a faculty association.

The association sought to challenge the university's decision to increase the compensation of two senior administrators during a statutory wage freeze under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the compensation decision had a sufficient public element to be subject to judicial review, that the association had public interest standing, and that it was not plain and obvious that the Act barred the application.