Michael Fenrick

The applicants, pharmacists facing discipline proceedings, sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Discipline Committee denying their motion for extensive disclosure of third-party medical and billing records.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding it premature.

The court reiterated that judicial review of interlocutory administrative decisions is only available in exceptional circumstances or where jurisdiction is irretrievably lost.

Finding no denial of natural justice and noting that extensive disclosure had already been provided, the court quashed the application.

The applicants, facing discipline proceedings before the Ontario College of Pharmacists, brought a motion seeking production of Third Party Records in advance of a pending judicial review application.

The Discipline Committee had previously dismissed their motion for disclosure at the first stage of the O'Connor and Mills test, finding the records were not likely relevant.

The applicants argued the records were necessary for the court to properly analyze the production issue on judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the issue on judicial review is whether the Tribunal erred in law at the first stage of the analysis, and examining the records beforehand would usurp the Tribunal's function.

The moving party, Dr. Sazant, sought an extension of time to bring a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to challenge an order of a single judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the delay prejudiced the respondents.

The court emphasized that resort to s. 21(5) should not become routine and that the justice of the case did not require granting the extension.

The tenants appealed a Divisional Court decision that reversed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting a 2.5% rent reduction.

The Board had found that the landlord's removal of fenced-in gardens to build townhouses constituted a reduction in 'common recreational facilities'.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court erred in applying a correctness standard of review, finding that reasonableness was the appropriate standard.

While the Board's finding that the landscaped areas were 'common recreational facilities' was reasonable, its conclusions that there was a 'reduction' in facilities and its calculation of the rent reduction were unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a residential development that would allegedly interfere with the public's view of the Legislative Building.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for leave to appeal and found that while the proposed appeal raised a question of law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision regarding the interpretation of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party (the College) brought a motion to quash an appeal by the responding parties (the members) from an interlocutory order of the Discipline Committee.

The Discipline Committee had dismissed the members' motion for the production of additional third-party records.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the statutory right of appeal only applies to final decisions, not interlocutory ones.

The court also declined the members' request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, noting that such an application would be premature and that the administrative process should be permitted to unfold.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the claimant, R.M., brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the appellant, Dr. Sazant.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Board that extended the time for R.M. to file a compensation claim for alleged sexual assaults.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that section 23 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act only permits appeals from final decisions, not interlocutory orders.

The Court further held that even if the proceeding were converted to a judicial review application, it would be stayed as premature to avoid fragmenting the administrative process.