MacFarland J.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer their complaints of discrimination based on handicap to a Board of Inquiry.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive full disclosure of the respondents' submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants received the same materials that were before the Commission and had a full opportunity to respond.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was within its discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding fee estimates and time extensions for producing records.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was procedural in nature and fell squarely within the Commissioner's expertise.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found the decision was not irrational and dismissed the application.

The Law Society swore a complaint against the appellant solicitor containing eight counts of alleged misconduct.

A panel of the Discipline Committee dismissed two counts under the old Law Society Act, which did not allow for costs unless proceedings were unwarranted.

A second panel later stayed the remaining counts.

By then, a new Act was in effect, allowing the hearing panel to award costs.

The second panel and the Appeal Panel held that the old Act applied because a hearing had commenced.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that 'hearing' refers to the substantive hearing on the merits, which had not commenced for the remaining counts.

The matter was remitted for a determination of costs under the new Act.