Austen Metcalfe

The applicant, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Discipline and Fitness to Practise Committees to amend their rule regarding third-party record production to align with R. v. Mills.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing as he was not currently subject to any proceedings where the rule would apply.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if standing were established, the Committees' decision to update the rule was reasonable and within their statutory authority.

The applicant brought a motion for the production of notes made by an adjudicator who resigned from the discipline committee panel before a decision was rendered.

The applicant sought the notes to support a motion to set aside the underlying decision based on fresh evidence, alleging bias and a breach of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no procedural basis to order production under Rule 30.06 in a statutory appeal.

Furthermore, the court held that the notes were protected by deliberative secrecy, and the applicant's speculative allegations did not meet the threshold to lift the privilege.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying an adjournment of eviction proceedings pending the resolution of her Human Rights Tribunal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already found new accommodation and vacated the premises.

The court noted this dismissal does not affect her ongoing human rights application regarding the cancellation of her rent-geared-to-income subsidy.