Administrative Law - OCA

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society Appeal Panel related to his uncivil in-court conduct during a lengthy securities fraud trial.

The appellant argued that trial judges, not the Law Society, should oversee in-court conduct and that the Appeal Panel's test for incivility failed to protect zealous advocacy.

The Court of Appeal held that the reasonableness standard of review applied to the Appeal Panel's decision.

The Court found that the Law Society has the statutory authority to discipline lawyers for in-court incivility, independent of a trial judge's actions.

The Court upheld the Appeal Panel's test for incivility and its finding that the appellant's repeated, unfounded allegations of prosecutorial misconduct constituted professional misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an HIV-positive inmate, was placed in administrative segregation due to safety concerns regarding his sexual relations with other inmates.

He applied for habeas corpus, which was dismissed by the application judge despite findings of minor procedural flaws in the segregation review process.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the application judge lacked discretion to deny the writ once a breach of procedural fairness was found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural flaws did not render the detention unlawful and that the application judge properly exercised his residual discretion to deny the writ.

The Attorney General of Canada moved for a stay pending appeal of a judgment declaring provisions of the Canada Elections Act that restricted non-resident citizens from voting unconstitutional.

The application judge had found the five-year non-residency limit violated section 3 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the risk of irreparable harm was balanced between the parties, and the balance of convenience favoured refusing the stay to allow newly enfranchised non-resident citizens to vote in upcoming federal by-elections.

The appellant, an aerodrome operator, appealed a decision declaring that a municipal fill by-law applied to its landfill activities.

The appellant argued the by-law was inapplicable under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity because aerodromes fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the by-law regulates the quality of fill for environmental protection and does not impermissibly trench on the core of the federal aeronautics power.

The appellants sued the City of Oshawa for negligence, alleging the City incorrectly advised them that no building permit was required for a deck, and subsequently negligently investigated and prosecuted them under the Building Code Act.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the City acted reasonably.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming the trial judge applied the correct standard of care for negligent investigation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial judge's award from substantial indemnity to partial indemnity, as the appellants' conduct was not reprehensible.

The appellant operated a property management business and appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of property owners without a paralegal license.

The Law Society obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting him from providing legal services.

On appeal, the appellant argued he was a 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act and thus entitled to self-represent.

The Court of Appeal held that even if he met the definition of a landlord, he was providing legal services to third parties and had no right to self-represent under the Law Society Act.

The appeal was dismissed, but the injunction was narrowed to allow him to appear before the board only when he is the actual owner of the property.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order under the Extradition Act.

The applicant conceded that the Minister applied the correct principles regarding sections 7 and 6(1) of the Charter and section 44 of the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the Minister's surrender decision was not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application for mandamus requiring Hydro One to deliver his hydro bills by courier.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the decision was made under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and therefore required leave to appeal under s. 6(4).

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that because the appellant had not obtained leave, the appeal was not properly before the court and must be quashed.

The appellant, a private school, expelled a student for smoking marijuana in the school residence.

The student and his parents successfully applied to the Divisional Court for judicial review of the expulsion decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (JRPA).

The school appealed, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the expulsion decision was governed by the private contract between the parents and the school, not public law.

The decision lacked a sufficient public dimension to be subject to public law remedies under the JRPA.

The respondent farmer sued the appellant municipality for negligence after the municipality forced him to remove his wild boar herd under a by-law.

The farmer amended his claim to allege the municipality owed him a duty of care under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, which exempts 'normal farm practices' from municipal by-laws.

The municipality moved to strike the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions allowing the claim to proceed, finding that while the statute does not impose an explicit duty of care, the municipality may owe a common law duty of care to the farmer when enforcing by-laws that could restrict farming operations.

The appellant's proposed wind power project was cancelled by the Ontario government during an election campaign.

The appellant sued for damages, alleging misfeasance in public office, claiming the government acted in bad faith for electoral expediency and specifically targeted the appellant to cripple it financially.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the claim for misfeasance in public office to proceed, but only on the narrow basis that the government's conduct was specifically targeted to injure the appellant financially.

The court held that core policy decisions based on electoral expediency do not constitute bad faith for the purposes of misfeasance in public office.

The appellants, two former doctoral students, appealed an order striking their 187-page Statement of Claim as an abuse of process without leave to amend.

They conceded the original claim was properly struck but argued they should have been granted leave to file a narrower amended claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision, as the proposed claims were an indirect attempt to appeal internal academic decisions that should be addressed through judicial review.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The appellants, medical residents, sued the university and several individuals in contract and tort after being dismissed or not promoted in their programs.

The motion judge struck their statement of claim as an abuse of process, finding it was an attempt to relitigate facts already determined through the university's internal academic appeal process and upheld on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the abuse of process doctrine applies to prevent relitigation of issues determined in administrative proceedings where the process directly affected the appellants' academic and professional standing.

The appellants, who were subjects of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigation, sued the CRA, the Attorney General, and various investigators for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and negligence after criminal charges against them were discharged or stayed.

The motion judge struck most of the claims for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the malicious prosecution and Family Law Act claims, but reinstated the claims for abuse of process and negligence against the CRA investigators, finding it was not plain and obvious that CRA investigators do not owe a duty of care to suspects under investigation.

The appellants, two Black lawyers, were aggressively asked for identification in a lawyers' lounge by a librarian who did not question anyone else.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found this constituted racial discrimination.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the tribunal applied the wrong test and reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the tribunal's decision, holding that the Divisional Court erred by requiring a 'causal nexus' for discrimination and by confusing the legal burden of proof with the shifting evidential burden.

The appellants requested a suspension of the court's judgment released on June 10, 2013.

On consent of the respondent, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered that the judgment be suspended until June 25, 2013, to allow for an orderly winding-down of the operations of RX Processing Services Inc.

The appellants operated an online pharmacy selling prescription drugs to Americans, with a call center located in Ontario.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists sought an injunction to stop the appellants from selling drugs without accreditation and using restricted terms.

The application judge granted the injunction, finding the sales occurred in Ontario and the College had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a purposive approach to the legislation confirmed the sales took place in Ontario and that there was a sufficient connection to ground the College's jurisdiction to protect the public interest.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission applied to revoke a liquor licence held by a full-patch member of the Hells Angels.

The board dismissed the application, and the Divisional Court affirmed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the board erred in law by applying a 'balance of probabilities' standard instead of the lower 'reasonable grounds for belief' standard required by s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The board also misconstrued the test by improperly limiting its analysis of the licensee's past conduct to his operation of the business and requiring evidence of past criminal activity.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the board for reconsideration.

The appellants, high-stakes gamblers who lost approximately $2.1 million playing roulette, sued the casino operators and the provincial gaming regulator.

They alleged that the casino's practice of removing a 'floating ball' from the roulette wheel and calling a 'no-spin' was an unapproved rule of play, rendering the games illegal under the Criminal Code and entitling them to the return of their losses via unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the floating ball practice was not a rule of play requiring regulatory approval, as it did not impact the fairness or integrity of the game.

Furthermore, even if the games were illegal, the casino operators had a juristic reason for enrichment based on their reasonable reliance on the legality of the games, and the regulator owed no private duty of care to the gamblers.

A guest at the appellant's resort drowned in an unattended indoor swimming pool.

A Ministry of Labour inspector ordered the resort to report the death under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires reporting when a person is killed or critically injured from any cause at a workplace.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Divisional Court upheld the order, finding the pool was a workplace because employees sometimes worked there.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that this interpretation was unreasonable as it would lead to absurd results.

The Court held that s. 51(1) requires a reasonable nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at the site.