13 total
Application for judicial review dismissed; Director's Delegate's decision on income replacement benefits was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding the respondent insured's entitlement to income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The Director's Delegate had upheld the arbitrator's award of income replacement benefits but remitted other issues for re-hearing due to inadequate reasons.
The insurer argued the Director's Delegate breached procedural fairness and provided inadequate reasons by not remitting all issues.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Director's Delegate's reasons were adequate and reasonable.
Police officer's dismissal for theft varied to demotion due to unconsidered mitigating character and rehabilitation evidence.
The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing gas and supplies from the detachment.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer made significant errors by failing to consider substantial mitigating character evidence and the appellant's successful rehabilitation for PTSD and alcoholism.
The penalty was varied to a demotion to fourth-class constable with strict conditions for ongoing psychological monitoring.
Coroner's refusal to summons videos quashed for applying an overly stringent test of materiality.
The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.
The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.
The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.
Court declined to access USB key information during judicial review hearing as it was unnecessary.
During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.
The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.
Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.
Motion to quash summons granted; video evidence sought for judicial review deemed irrelevant to jurisdictional issues.
The applicants, who were parties to an inquest into the death of an inmate, sought judicial review of a Coroner's decision refusing to order the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to produce certain video recordings.
In preparation for the judicial review, the applicants served a summons on the Commissioner of the CSC, requiring him to bring the videos to an examination so they could be viewed by the Divisional Court.
The CSC brought a motion to quash the summons.
The court granted the motion and quashed the summons, finding that the videos were clearly irrelevant to the issues on judicial review, which were limited to whether the Coroner acted unfairly or exceeded her jurisdiction.
The court noted that the record already contained sufficient descriptions of the videos' contents for the purpose of the judicial review.
Application challenging paralegal regulation dismissed; occupational status not protected under s. 15 of the Charter.
The applicant, a paralegal, sought a declaration that the Law Society of Upper Canada's by-laws regulating paralegals under the Access for Justice Act, 2006 were of no force and effect, arguing the Act infringed s. 15 of the Charter.
He also sought judicial review of the Lieutenant Governor's decision to grant royal assent to the Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that occupational status is not a protected ground under s. 15 of the Charter.
Furthermore, the court held that the granting of royal assent is a constitutional convention not subject to judicial review.
Publication ban and intervenor status granted in human rights complaint regarding police reference checks.
The complainants challenged the respondent's policy of disclosing mental health apprehensions on police reference checks.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the complainants' request for a publication ban to anonymize their identities due to the highly personal nature of the information at issue.
The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the Attorney General of Ontario to adduce expert evidence on the relevancy of such apprehensions to vulnerable sector checks.
Motion to intervene dismissed as proposed new issues would unfairly expand the scope of the appeal.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the retention and disclosure of police records by the Peel Regional Police Service.
The proposed intervener sought to raise new Charter issues regarding the police service's policies and practices.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the proposed intervener had relevant expertise, permitting the intervention would unfairly change the focus and scope of the proceedings, require a new evidentiary record, and prejudice the respondent given the proximity to the hearing date.
Constitutional challenge to Ontario's pit bull ban dismissed; legislation upheld in its entirety.
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's ban on pit bulls under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, arguing the law was overbroad and vague under s. 7 of the Charter, and that a provision allowing a veterinarian's certificate as proof of breed violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d).
The application judge upheld the ban but struck down parts of the definition and the certificate provision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the Attorney General's cross-appeal, restoring the struck provisions.
The Court held the ban was not grossly disproportionate to the risk posed by pit bulls, the definition was not unconstitutionally vague, and the certificate provision did not create a mandatory presumption of guilt.
Leave to appeal denied; Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction to hear physicians' Charter challenges.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.
The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.
The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.
Denial of severance pay to employees whose contracts are frustrated by disability violates Charter s. 15.
The grievor, a nurse, was dismissed for innocent absenteeism after a non-work-related injury frustrated her employment contract.
The employer refused to pay severance pay, relying on s. 58(5)(c) of the Employment Standards Act, which exempts employers from paying severance to employees whose contracts are frustrated due to illness or injury.
The union grieved the denial as a violation of s. 15 of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the provision discriminates against disabled employees by perpetuating the stereotype that they will not return to the workforce, and declared the provision unconstitutional.
Section 58(5)(c) of the Employment Standards Act struck down for discriminating against disabled employees regarding severance pay.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board decision that upheld the constitutionality of s. 58(5)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.
The provision denied severance pay to employees whose contracts were frustrated due to illness or injury.
The Divisional Court found that the provision discriminated against severely disabled employees, violating s. 15(1) of the Charter, and was not saved by s. 1.
The offending words were struck down, and the disabled employee was awarded severance pay.
Interim certification granted to the union pending final resolution of disputed bargaining unit classifications.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A representation vote was held, and more than 50% of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.
The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, except for certain disputed positions.
The Board determined that the applicant's right to certification could not be affected by the ultimate decision on the disputed classifications.
Pursuant to section 9(2) of the Act, the Board granted interim certification to the applicant pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit's composition.