Kathleen Ann Clements

The applicants sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants had a timely intention to appeal, their explanation for the delay was inadequate, there was continuing prejudice to the public interest due to delayed enforcement of an environmental order, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court emphasized that lack of merit alone can be determinative in such motions.

The Applicants sought an extension of time under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision, which had dismissed their appeal of a Director's Order regarding environmental contamination.

The Director brought a cross-motion to dismiss the judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Applicants' motion and granted the Director's motion, finding that the Applicants failed to establish apparent grounds for relief and that extending the time would cause substantial prejudice to ongoing Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The Ministry moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by a Drive Clean facility and its owner.

The applicants sought to review an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of their accreditation and certification for falsifying test results.

The Ministry argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Performance Contract.

The court found that while the accreditation process is a licensing system, there was no legislative intent in the Environmental Protection Act to override the mandatory arbitration clause.

The application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success and was quashed.