Barry G. MacDougall

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which stayed its application to evict the tenant.

The tenant had breached a mediated settlement regarding rent arrears and subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the eviction application was a claim provable in bankruptcy and thus stayed under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the landlord's application sought only eviction, not the payment of arrears, and therefore was not a claim provable in bankruptcy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his reprisal complaint against his employer, the TTC.

The Board had consolidated the hearing of the applicant's reprisal complaint with a motion brought by the TTC to state a case for contempt against the applicant.

The Divisional Court held that consolidating the two proceedings violated the principles of fundamental justice and procedural fairness, as it forced the applicant to defend against quasi-criminal contempt allegations while pursuing his reprisal claim, leading to adverse inferences when he chose not to testify.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently-constituted panel.

The applicant, an African-Canadian male, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his complaint against the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to a board of inquiry.

The applicant alleged that the law school's reliance on LSAT scores for admission constituted systemic discrimination against African-Canadians.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable, as it had considered extensive evidence showing the law school used a holistic admissions policy rather than strict numerical cut-offs.

The court also dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission refusing to deal with his age discrimination complaint on the basis that it was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The applicant argued that the Commission breached the rules of natural justice by providing insufficient reasons and that its decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's screening function attracts a standard of patent unreasonableness, the reasons provided were adequate for an administrative screening decision, and the decision to dismiss the complaint for untimeliness was supported by the evidence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetency.

The appellant argued that the Committee's refusal to grant him an adjournment due to his medical unfitness to instruct counsel or participate in the hearing constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the uncontradicted medical evidence established the appellant's inability to proceed, and that the Committee's refusal to adjourn the hearing was a denial of natural justice.

The Committee's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The appellant pharmacists were shareholders and directors of a corporation convicted of income tax evasion related to undeclared volume rebates from drug companies.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists found them guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in conduct relevant to the practice of pharmacy that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

On appeal, the Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that the appellants' participation in the tax evasion scheme reflected adversely on the profession and constituted conduct relevant to the practice of pharmacy.

The appellant appealed a Board decision that found it had no jurisdiction to hear a claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board correctly found the land was voluntarily dedicated rather than expropriated under s. 1(1)(a), it erred in concluding that s. 1(1)(b) required a taking of land.

Section 1(1)(b) contemplates an action for injurious affection where no expropriation has occurred.

The Court also found the Board erred in its interpretation of the limitation period under s. 22(1), holding that time runs from the completion of construction when actual damage is discovered, not from a pre-construction opinion.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a full hearing.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the disclosure of records of the Physician Services Committee.

The Minister argued the records were exempt under the 'labour relations' provision in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner that 'labour relations' refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees.

Since members of the Ontario Medical Association are not employees of the Ministry, the exemption did not apply.