Bay Ryley

The applicant sought judicial review of a college's decision to involuntarily withdraw him from a respiratory therapy program after he failed clinical placements.

He also challenged the college's refusal to process his internal academic appeal due to missed deadlines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the college's academic decision was reasonable and justified by patient safety concerns.

The court also held that the college did not breach procedural fairness in strictly enforcing its internal appeal deadlines.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding the admissibility of certain paragraphs in Dr. Chong's affidavit filed on a motion to stay.

The College argued that the paragraphs contained quality assurance information, which is protected under s. 83.1(6) of the Act.

The court agreed, ruling that the legislation does not permit quality assurance information to be referred to or treated as evidence.

The court excluded the paragraphs from evidence, noting that Dr. Chong's counsel could still refer to the information during argument as it was already in the record of proceedings.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing clinical supervision conditions on his practice, pending his application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court held that the financial cost of supervision did not amount to irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the College due to patient safety concerns.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it had discriminated against a former employee on the basis of disability.

The employer argued the employee's shoulder injury was not a disability, the Tribunal made factual errors, and the Tribunal was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's finding of disability was reasonable, the factual errors were immaterial, and the findings in favour of the employee did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to not deal with her complaint against the University of Windsor.

The applicant alleged that the university's policy of keeping her failed first-year marks on her transcript was discriminatory.

The Commission dismissed the complaint because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision reasonable and holding that the ongoing presence of the marks on the transcript constituted continuing effects of a past act, not a continuing contravention of the Code.

The appellant sought to amend his appeal to the Divisional Court to include a section 7 Charter challenge against OHIP's refusal to fund his out-of-country liver transplant.

The Charter issue was not raised before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

Applying the prerequisites from R. v. Brown, the court allowed the amendment, finding a sufficient evidentiary record, no tactical delay, and that refusing the amendment could result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly given recent Supreme Court jurisprudence in Chaoulli and legislative changes preventing the Board from hearing constitutional issues.