Dennis W. Brown

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed a decision of the Human Rights Board of Inquiry finding that the Ministry failed to comply with a 1998 remedial order regarding a racially poisoned work environment.

The Board had ordered a human rights training program, which was not implemented within the required timeframe or in the approved manner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board had the supervisory jurisdiction to remain seized of the matter, hear evidence of continuing discrimination, and recast its original orders to ensure an effective remedy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a decision by the Chief's designate regarding a police misconduct complaint.

The Chief's designate had found that the officer acted in good faith when misrepresenting polygraph results to the complainant and concluded there was insufficient proof of misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, holding that the Chief's role under ss. 64(6) and (7) of the Police Services Act is not to make findings of fact or credibility at the preliminary stage, but rather to determine if there is a reasonable basis or an 'air of reality' to the complaint.

The matter was remitted to the Chief or a different designate for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld the Chief of Police's decision to dismiss a misconduct complaint.

The Chief's designate had dismissed the complaint at the preliminary stage by making findings of fact and credibility regarding the officer's good faith in misrepresenting polygraph results.

The Divisional Court held that findings of fact and credibility should be determined at a hearing, not at the preliminary screening stage.

The applicable test is whether there is a reasonable basis to the complaint or an 'air of reality' to the evidence.

The Commission's decision was found to be patently unreasonable, quashed, and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, Earthroots Coalition, sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resources' decision to permit the improvement and use of a logging road crossing the Bob Lake Conservation Reserve.

The applicant argued the road use violated the Conservation Reserve Regulation, which prohibits commercial forest harvest and industrial uses in the reserve.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court dismissed the application.

The court held that the regulation must be interpreted purposively within the broader legislative framework of the Public Lands Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, making the Minister's decision to balance conservation with forest management objectives reasonable.

The applicant applied for judicial review to quash an adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of records relating to the costs of bringing witnesses from India to Canada for a murder trial.

The adjudicator had ordered the records disclosed with the witnesses' names and signatures expunged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator reasonably interpreted and applied the exemptions under the applicable legislation and correctly found that the exemption under s. 19 did not apply.

The trial judge cited senior detention centre officials for contempt of court due to persistent delays in bringing the accused to trial.

An independent prosecutor was appointed to take carriage of the contempt proceedings, and the trial judge ordered the Crown to remunerate him at his normal private sector rate of $375 per hour, plus $210 per hour for junior counsel.

The Crown appealed the rates.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that an independent prosecutor performing a public service paid from public funds should not expect private sector rates.

The rates were reduced to $250 per hour for lead counsel and $140 per hour for junior counsel.

The moving parties (respondents on the appeal) brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of several orders made by a Board of Inquiry regarding a racially poisoned workplace at a detention centre.

The Board had ordered the Ministry to publicize its decision, implement organizational reforms, and conduct anti-racism training.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and lifted the stay of the order requiring publication of the decision, finding irreparable harm to the complainant if he was kept out of the workplace.

However, the court declined to lift the stays on the orders requiring organizational reforms and training, finding that the balance of convenience favoured leaving them in place until the appeal was decided, given the substantial public funds involved and the Ministry's pending appeal.

In a postscript endorsement regarding costs, the Court of Appeal assessed the successful respondent's costs at $13,661, agreeing with the appellant's submissions.

The Minister of Health failed to submit their bill of costs in a timely manner despite requests, prompting the court to arbitrarily assess their costs at $4,000 inclusive of GST, noting that the court cannot function based on the time convenience of counsel.

Apotex appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the provincial government's decision to list its generic drug, Apo-Sertraline, on the provincial Formulary with a limited use designation.

The limitation restricted its interchangeability with Pfizer's Zoloft to the treatment of depression, reflecting federal patent protections on other uses.

Apotex argued the province exceeded its jurisdiction under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act by considering patent restrictions rather than just therapeutic equivalence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the province had clear jurisdiction to ensure the Formulary only lists drugs that are legal to sell under federal law.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services appealed two Divisional Court decisions quashing its orders to hold hearings into civilian complaints against police officers.

The Divisional Court had held that the Commission failed to specify the allegations with sufficient particularity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the Commission is only required to provide sufficient information to permit the chief of police to reasonably inform the officer of the case to meet, and is not required to draft the actual charge or provide reasons.

The Court also dismissed a cross-appeal, finding that the remedial steps in s. 13(3) of the Regulation do not apply to public complaints of unsatisfactory work performance.

The appellant Crown appealed a refusal by the motions judge to withdraw her prior decision dismissing a stay motion in an employment-related proceeding brought by a former Crown employee.

The Court of Appeal held that a reasonable apprehension of bias arose because the motions judge was herself pursuing ongoing employment-related litigation against the Crown while adjudicating a similar claim advanced against the same party.

Applying the governing bias principles, the court found that a disqualifying interest is broader than pecuniary or proprietary interest and includes some relevant interest in the subject matter.

The appearance of impartiality was compromised, both orders were set aside, and the stay motion was remitted to be reheard by a different judge.

No costs were awarded.

Appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing a municipal restructuring commission’s final proposal amalgamating several municipalities and annexing unorganized territory.

The Court of Appeal held that judicial review of a restructuring commission performing a political and legislative function is narrowly confined to whether the commission acted according to law, and does not permit the court to revisit the merits of restructuring policy.

The Divisional Court erred in finding illegality, inadequate consultation with First Nations as a free-standing jurisdictional defect, failure to apply the former OMB 'three filters' test, an impermissible 'tax grab', and bias.

The cross-appeal seeking a declaration under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 was dismissed without prejudice because the record was inadequate for determination of the constitutional issue.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief pending the determination of its application for a declaration that the Minister of Health acted unlawfully in refusing to recommend its generic drug for inclusion in the Drug Benefit Formulary.

The Minister had reconsidered its recommendation after a Federal Court decision quashed the applicant's Notice of Compliance, despite a subsequent stay of that decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Minister's refusal was motivated by a desire to protect the public interest, and therefore the applicant failed to meet the balance of convenience requirement for interim relief.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.

The respondents' child, who has cerebral palsy, was placed in a special education class by a Tribunal contrary to the parents' wishes.

The Court of Appeal held this violated section 15 of the Charter and read in a presumption of integration into the Education Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the constitutional validity of the Act without the required statutory notice.

Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision did not violate section 15 of the Charter, as it was based on the child's best interests and actual needs, and did not impose a burden or disadvantage.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the penalty of a loss of five days' leave.

The officer had supplied cases of beer to a civilian on Sundays through the back door of a restaurant owned by his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the adjudicator's finding that the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force, rejecting the argument that it was merely an exchange among friends.

The Commission also confirmed the penalty, noting the application of progressive discipline given a prior conviction for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed for discreditable conduct.

He had been found carrying a loaded firearm for hunting at night and in possession of an open bottle of liquor in his vehicle.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the charges and noting that the incident was the culminating event in a series of prior infractions, demonstrating a wilful disregard for the law.

The appellants, a corporal and a constable, appealed their convictions for neglect of duty under the Police Act.

The charges arose from an incident where a civilian turned in a firearm for disposal, and the constable kept it for personal gain with the corporal's knowledge, in breach of Force procedures.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while there was no intent to deceive, intent is not an element of the offence.

The Commission confirmed the convictions and the penalties of forfeiture of pay and vacation days, dismissing the appeals.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Police Act.

He had been charged with willfully making a false statement to a superior officer regarding how he obtained radar readings for a speeding ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer had implicitly accepted the appellant's evidence that he did not make the alleged false statement, and therefore could not have intended to commit the offence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The appellant, a police officer, sought judicial review to declare his resignation invalid, alleging it was obtained through lengthy interrogation and threats to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a true and continuing intent to resign up to the time it was accepted by the Commissioner.

Consequently, there was no exercise of a statutory power of decision that would give rise to judicial review.