James Kendik

The applicants, a group of dairy farmers who export their milk, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Minister had rescinded a Tribunal order that would have allowed the applicants to export milk without holding provincial quota.

The applicants challenged the Minister's decision on administrative law grounds, including bias and inadequate reasons, and argued that the provincial milk marketing scheme was an ultra vires attempt to regulate international trade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the provincial scheme was a valid regulation of intraprovincial trade that only incidentally affected exports, and that the Minister's decision was not patently unreasonable, biased, or procedurally unfair.

The appellant Ministry appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal's supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of its previous orders.

The Tribunal had found that the Ministry acted in bad faith in attempting to comply with an order mandating a human rights training program to address a poisoned work environment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction under s. 41 to recast its orders and impose system-wide remedies.

The Court also rejected the Ministry's argument that it was denied procedural fairness, concluding it had sufficient notice of the allegations of bad faith.

The appellant, a generic drug manufacturer, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application challenging the vires of the Ontario government's drug pricing policy.

The policy imposed a price freeze on generic drugs and regulated their prices as a percentage of the equivalent brand name drug (the 70/90 rule).

The appellant argued the regulations were ultra vires the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act and the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and were arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the amended legislation explicitly authorized the Minister to consider the prices of other drug products when setting the drug benefit price.

The court also held that the policy was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as its purpose was to achieve the lowest prices for drug products in the public interest.

The respondent, owner of lands east of Lake Superior Provincial Park, sought to use a road within the Park to access its lands for timber harvesting.

The Acting Park Superintendent denied the request based on the 1995 Lake Superior Provincial Park Management Plan.

The application judge granted judicial review, finding the Superintendent's interpretation incorrect and procedurally unfair.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the application judge erred by applying a correctness standard.

Applying a pragmatic and functional approach, the Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness or patent unreasonableness, and found the Superintendent's interpretation of the policy document was not unreasonable.

The applicants brought applications for judicial review.

During the hearing, counsel for a third party requested an adjournment to review the filings and potentially seek intervenor status, as the third party had not been served.

The court granted the adjournment to allow the third party to decide whether to intervene.

The court also issued an interim order delaying the effective date of the third party's generic drug listings pending the resumption of the hearing.

The applicant generic drug manufacturers brought an urgent motion under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to proceed with an application for judicial review before a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The applicants alleged that a competitor had obtained an unfair advantage regarding the upcoming release of a new schedule for the drug formulary.

The court found that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm due to the permanent loss of market share associated with the first-to-market advantage, and that the prerequisites of s. 6(2) were met.

The application for judicial review was permitted to continue.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application against the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which had cancelled its contract with the applicant charitable organization and seized its property without authority.

The Divisional Court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the government's unfair treatment of the applicant and the complexity of the proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $120,000 plus GST.

The plaintiffs, the estate and family of a man fatally shot by police, brought actions for misfeasance in a public office and negligence against the involved officers, the Chief of Police, the Police Services Board, and the Province.

The claims arose from the officers' alleged failure to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation.

The defendants moved to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the actions for misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the Chief, and the negligence action against the Chief, could proceed, as it was not plain and obvious they would fail.

However, the negligence actions against the Board and the Province were struck out because they did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs to ensure officers cooperated with the SIU.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to strike an affidavit from the appeal book in an appeal from a human rights tribunal decision.

The affidavit contained notes and subjective observations regarding the tribunal's conduct during the hearing, which the Commission argued went beyond permissible gap-filling evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit was not fresh evidence but was relevant to the issues of bias and partiality raised on appeal.

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, a non-profit charity providing services to developmentally disabled individuals, sought judicial review of a Ministry decision terminating its funding and directing another agency to take over its operations and property.

The Ministry made the decision without notice, citing a loss of confidence following a series of serious occurrences.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the decision was the exercise of a statutory power and thus amenable to judicial review.

The court held the decision was illegal and made without jurisdiction because the Ministry failed to obtain the required order in council under the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Furthermore, the decision was patently unreasonable and breached the duty of fairness owed to the applicant.

The applicant, a non-profit organization providing services to developmentally disabled individuals, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to terminate its funding without notice and direct another agency to take over its operations and property.

The Ministry cited a loss of confidence following several 'serious occurrences'.

The Divisional Court held that the Ministry's actions constituted the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The Court found the decision to be illegal, patently unreasonable, and a breach of the duty of fairness, as the Ministry failed to obtain the required Order in Council to seize the property and failed to provide the applicant with fair warning or an opportunity to respond.

The application was granted, and the Ministry was ordered to restore funding and return management to the applicant.

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 Minister of Health appealed a Divisional Court decision that allowed Apotex Inc.'s application for judicial review.

Apotex sought to increase the listed prices of three of its drug products in the Formulary after a generic competitor failed to bring its lower-priced products to market.

The Minister refused to recommend the price increase, citing a cost neutrality policy.

The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for the Minister's highly discretionary decision was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found that the Minister's refusal was rational and not patently unreasonable, as the Formulary was already in effect and the cost neutrality policy was applicable.

The appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review was dismissed.