3 total
Reappointment process for Small Claims Court Deputy Judges does not violate judicial independence.
The appellant association appealed a decision finding that the process for renewing the appointments of Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court does not infringe the principles of judicial independence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Valente.
The Court held that a reasonable and well-informed observer would conclude that the Deputy Judges and the Small Claims Court are sufficiently independent, as the renewal discretion rests with senior judicial officers rather than the Executive.
Appeal from Ontario Energy Board dismissed; Board's refusal to review its decision was reasonable.
The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board declining to review its previous decision that allowed a wind energy company to build distribution facilities on municipal road allowances.
The municipality argued the Board erred in interpreting its review power too narrowly and that the presence of an original panel member on the review panel created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of its review rules was reasonable and that the participation of an original member in a reconsideration process does not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Judicial review dismissed; Commission reasonably upheld racetrack's suspension of owner after horse's death.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission, which upheld a private racetrack's decision to suspend the applicant owner's racing and stabling privileges following the death of a 13-year-old racehorse during training.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether the public interest warranted interfering with the racetrack's private property rights.
The Court held that the Commission's decision was procedurally fair and reasonable, as the evidence supported the finding that the applicant failed to take reasonable precautions regarding the horse's fitness.
