Byrdena M. MacNeil

The Ombudsman of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that held neither the Election Compliance Audit Committee nor the Property Standards Committee of the City of Hamilton constituted "local boards" within the meaning of section 14.1 of the Ombudsman Act.

The Ombudsman sought to investigate whether these committees complied with the public meeting requirement under section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle to conclude that the general language in the definition of "local board" does not extend to investigative/adjudicative bodies that do not carry on the day-to-day operations of the municipality.

Consequently, the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate these committees' compliance with open meeting requirements.

The owner of a residential apartment complex defaulted on natural gas payments.

The City of Hamilton intervened under its Vital Services By-law, paid for the gas, registered a lien, and directed tenants to pay rent to the City pursuant to s. 221(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The first mortgagee subsequently sold the property under power of sale to a bona fide purchaser for value.

The City claimed its statutory right to collect rents survived the sale.

The Court of Appeal held that the City's right to direct rent payments is a statutory collection device, not an interest in land, and does not survive the transfer of the property to a bona fide purchaser for value.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission that upheld an inspection order imposing conditions on open air burning of brush on his property.

The appellant argued the Commission erred in its interpretation of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act by not requiring proof that a fire 'would seriously endanger' health and safety before imposing conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's interpretation of the Act was correct and its factual findings regarding the necessity of the conditions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant school board brought a motion to exclude the public, specifically the requester, from the hearing of an application involving sealed materials.

The applicant argued that the requester's presence would render the application moot by revealing the subject matter and that referring to sealed materials without reading them would inhibit counsel's effectiveness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the normal practice of referring the court to sealed materials without reading them aloud is sufficient and does not inhibit counsel.

The court emphasized that access to the court is a super-ordinate value under s. 135 of the Courts of Justice Act and there was no serious risk of injustice.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of records concerning a student's behaviour to the student's father.

The board argued the records were exempt under s. 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was not unreasonable for the adjudicator to conclude the board failed to discharge its burden of proof, given the lack of evidence of threatening behaviour by the father or psychiatric evidence regarding the son's propensity to carry out past threats.