Christopher Folz

The applicant sought judicial review of a housing cooperative's decision that she was no longer eligible for a Rent-Geared-to-Income subsidy after refusing an offer for a one-bedroom unit.

The applicant argued the cooperative lacked the delegated authority to make this determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the service manager had expressly delegated the authority to determine eligibility and consider extenuating circumstances to the cooperative.

The court also found the cooperative's decision that the applicant failed to establish extenuating circumstances was reasonable.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought a discipline proceeding against a professional engineer and his firm regarding the design and permitting of a replacement residential sewage system.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct for failing to complete contracted services, failing to submit permit applications in a timely manner, failing to adequately explain requirements to the client, and falsely advising the client that applications had been submitted.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission as to Penalty.

The respondents were reprimanded, the engineer was ordered to successfully complete the National Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, and the findings were ordered to be published.

The applicant, a registered band member of the Batchewana First Nation, sought judicial review of his eviction by the Batchewana First Nation Housing Authority from a residence subject to a rent-to-own agreement.

The Court determined that the eviction decision arose from a private contract dispute over property maintenance and rent arrears rather than the exercise of a public law power.

Applying the Air Canada factors, the Court held the Housing Authority was not acting as a 'federal board, commission or other tribunal'.

As the matter was private in nature, the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Mississauga First Nation's refusal to disclose documents requested under PIPEDA.

The request followed decisions removing the applicants from the First Nation's reserve lands.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that PIPEDA did not apply because the removal decision was not a commercial activity, and the request was a collateral attack on the unchallenged removal decisions.

The applicant, an advocacy group for strippers, brought a preliminary motion for an order permitting the anonymization of affidavits to be sworn by strippers in support of an application for judicial review challenging COVID-19 regulations.

The applicant argued that publicly identifying the affiants would put their economic and family safety at risk due to the stigma associated with their occupation.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found that the applicant established a serious risk to the administration of justice and that there was no reasonable alternative to the order.

The court granted the motion, allowing the use of non-identifying initials in publicly available documents, provided that the respondent and the court have access to the affiants' full names in a sealed record.

The applicant grandparents sought summary judgment for final sole custody of their grandson, who had been living with them since March 2018 following a traumatic incident involving the respondent mother.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to provide evidence of a stable housing or parenting plan.

Relying on the uncontested report of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted sole custody to the grandparents and ordered access for the mother.