4 total
Appeal of discipline committee costs decision dismissed; prosecution was not unwarranted despite appellant's election victory.
The appellant appealed a costs decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.
The Committee had dismissed a complaint regarding the appellant's election campaign material but denied his request for costs, finding the commencement of proceedings was not unwarranted.
The Divisional Court held that although the Committee erred in its view of what the Complaints Committee knew, this error did not render the decision unreasonable, as the election material could still reasonably be viewed as crossing the line into unprofessional conduct.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal from Discipline Committee's denial of costs dismissed; referral to hearing was not unwarranted.
The appellants appealed a decision of the respondent's Discipline Committee denying them the costs of a hearing.
The appellants argued that the Complaints Committee's referral of the matter to a hearing was unwarranted because it relied on an expert opinion that should have been rejected upon more careful investigation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee reasonably concluded the referral was not unwarranted based on the information before the Complaints Committee at the time.
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.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent Public Service Grievance Board proceedings raising identical issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrently filed grievances with the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB) raising identical allegations.
The Tribunal found complete overlap between the issues in the PSGB applications and the human rights application.
Concluding that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to require the respondent to participate in simultaneous proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the PSGB hearings.
