2 total
Regulators may choose reasonable rate-setting methodology without a mandatory prudence presumption.
The Ontario Energy Board appealed a decision that had required it to apply a mandatory prudence framework when assessing Ontario Power Generation compensation costs in rate-setting.
The majority held tribunal participation in defending its own decision was proper in this regulatory context and found no impermissible bootstrapping on appeal.
The Court held the governing statute did not require a single prudence methodology and permitted the Board to use a mixed approach for costs that were partly committed and partly subject to managerial discretion.
The Board’s disallowance of $145 million in compensation costs was found reasonable, and its original decision was reinstated.
Racing Commission has jurisdiction to hold hearings on race track exclusions despite private property rights.
The appellant association appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review.
The respondent race track owner had excluded certain licensed members of the appellant from racing at its track, citing private property rights.
The Ontario Racing Commission declined jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the matter, believing it could not interfere with private property rights.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission's broad statutory powers to govern and regulate horse racing in the public interest necessarily included the power to make decisions that incidentally affect private property rights.
The Commission was directed to hold a hearing.
