Administrative Law

The applicants, a registered political party, contracted to place political advertisements in municipal bus shelters.

The city removed the advertisements on the basis that they discriminated against the transgendered community, without providing the applicants an opportunity to be heard or considering their freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court quashed the city's decision and a subsequent ratifying motion, finding that the city breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to balance the competing Charter rights and by denying the applicants natural justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's decision dismissing his claim for accident benefits.

The applicant had settled his claim in 2003 after eight years of litigation but purported to rescind the settlement in 2014, arguing the settlement disclosure notice did not comply with the Settlement Regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably and correctly applied binding Court of Appeal precedent establishing that the regulation's strict disclosure requirements do not apply to settlements reached after a court action has commenced.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

After the decision, the applicant received an anonymous letter alleging the LAT's executive chair had changed the adjudicator's decision.

Evidence revealed the LAT had an unwritten peer review process where the executive chair reviewed draft decisions.

The Divisional Court held that this process breached the rules of adjudicative independence because consultation was imposed by a superior level of authority rather than requested by the adjudicator.

The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant, a landlord, sought judicial review of a City of North Bay by-law imposing licensing requirements on rental properties with multiple tenants.

She argued the by-law discriminated against students contrary to the Human Rights Code and the Charter, and conflicted with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that student status is not a protected ground, there was no evidence of adverse effects discrimination, and the by-law did not conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a previous Divisional Court decision dismissing her application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision.

She alleged fresh evidence of fraud based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was an abuse of process and vexatious, as the issue had already been decided in previous proceedings.

Full indemnity costs of $5,500 were awarded against the applicant.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found an agreement to terminate the respondents' tenancy under s. 37(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlords argued the Board erred by not applying general contract principles such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness and the Board made no error of law, as the statute only requires finding whether the parties agreed or consented to terminate, not a formal contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that granted the respondent reimbursement for non-emergency out-of-country hip surgery.

The surgery was performed before the General Manager issued a final decision denying the funding application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB unreasonably interpreted a request for further information as a denial of services.

Furthermore, the Court held that under the Health Insurance Act regulations, prior written approval from the General Manager is a mandatory prerequisite for reimbursement of non-emergency out-of-country medical services, and neither the General Manager nor the HSARB has the authority to retroactively approve such expenses.

Carleton University sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicator's decision ordering the University to issue an access decision regarding records related to a survey of Jewish students and faculty.

The University argued the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the 'research' exemption in s. 65(8.1)(a).

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that the internal survey, aimed at assessing the campus climate, did not constitute 'research' for academic purposes or generalizable knowledge within the meaning of the exemption.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a zoning by-law passed by a neighbouring municipality to permit a major tourist destination, including a casino.

The applicant raised eight questions of law, arguing the OMB misinterpreted the Planning Act, regulations, and official plans regarding municipal council decisions, complete applications, holding provisions, and public works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OMB's interpretations were reasonable and within its specialized planning expertise.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an Adjudicator with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that the Toronto Police Service had conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to his access request.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of gang stalking and mind control, and argued that the police failed to produce records documenting these activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Adjudicator's decision, no breach of procedural fairness, and declining to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The appellant, a registered physiotherapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for inappropriate touching during a patient's ankle treatment.

The Committee imposed a three-month suspension and costs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by attempting to physically recreate his described treatment techniques during their private deliberations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's actions were a proper evaluation of the evidentiary record and its credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty was also upheld as falling within a reasonable range.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians, which revoked his license to practice veterinary medicine and ordered him to pay costs of $160,000 for unprofessional conduct.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including missing transcripts, failure to disclose documents held by a third party, and alleged bias of an expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decision reasonable and noting that the appellant failed to bring a proper motion for third-party disclosure and consented to the expert's qualification.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a foreign-trained medical doctor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of standing.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to allege his own rights were infringed regarding the allocation of residency positions.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable because the applicant had included evidence in his application showing he had applied for and been denied a residency position.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO.

The appellant moved under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to correct a previous order of the Divisional Court, arguing the court erred in finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board was not required to produce and pay for transcripts of the hearing below.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 59.06 is intended for correcting accidental errors or omissions, not for re-arguing a decided issue or appealing a decision.

The appellant was granted a final extension to re-perfect her appeal by filing proof that she had ordered the transcripts.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act following the termination of her employment as a superintendent.

The tenant argued she was denied natural justice and that the Board erred in law by finding an employment relationship and failing to consider section 83(3) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, that the Board sufficiently considered the statutory provisions, and that the finding of an employment relationship was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her application for social assistance under the Ontario Works Act, 1997.

The appellant's spousal support payments were being garnished 100% by the Family Responsibility Office to repay an overpayment of child support.

The Administrator determined that the garnished spousal support payments constituted income because they were made on behalf of or for the benefit of the appellant to reduce her debt.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's interpretation of the clear and unambiguous statutory provisions to be reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a former Director of Education, appealed a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for plagiarism and revoking his certificate.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused his request for a medical adjournment and proceeded in his absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to consider the totality of the medical evidence regarding the appellant's major depressive disorder and unfairly relied on undisclosed internet search results about his employment.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellants, tenants in a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for seriously impairing the safety of others.

The eviction was based on the tenants keeping an unlawfully large number of unvaccinated feral cats, which had attacked a property manager's dog.

The appellants argued the Board erred by relying on the cats' unvaccinated status, as it was not explicitly listed as a ground in the eviction notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ground for eviction was serious impairment of safety, and the unvaccinated status of the cats was merely evidence supporting that ground.

The majority held that the Board's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a former probationary professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against the university.

The Tribunal had found her application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, calculating the time from the date she was denied tenure rather than her final day of employment or the denial of her grievance.

The Tribunal also dismissed her reprisal claim and denied her request to amend the application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, finding that the denial of tenure was the triggering event and that there was no evidence of an intention to retaliate by the university.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The incidents complained of occurred between 2003 and 2012, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, as the applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay and could not establish a series of incidents extending into the limitation period.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.