Administrative Law - OCA

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2003, challenged the Board's decision to maintain his detention, arguing the Board failed to consider statutory factors regarding reintegration into society and other needs, and failed to exercise the constant vigilance required for long-term detainees with non-violent index offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

A provincially incorporated contractor providing construction services to federally regulated telecommunications companies sought to challenge a provincial labour relations board's certification of its construction technicians as a provincially regulated bargaining unit.

The contractor argued that its construction technicians performed work vital, essential, or integral to federal undertakings and should therefore be subject to federal labour jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations was not displaced.

The court found that the federal undertaking (Rogers) was not dependent on the contractor's construction technicians, and that the proper focus in derivative jurisdiction analysis is whether the federal undertaking is dependent on the particular employees in question, not whether the work performed is generally important to the federal undertaking.

The appellant, seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, sued her insurer for bad faith in handling her statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim, seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

The insurer had failed for approximately three years to advise the appellant or her parents that her injuries qualified as a catastrophic impairment or to inform them of available benefits.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the dispute resolution provisions of the Insurance Act apply broadly to disputes concerning SABs entitlement and administration, regardless of whether the claim is characterized as one for bad faith.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault and other offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention pursuant to a hybrid order allowing transition from secure to general forensic unit with community living privileges.

The appellant had been on conditional discharge but was readmitted to hospital after missing his monthly antipsychotic medication injection.

Following rapid decompensation and aggressive behaviour requiring seclusion, the Board concluded a conditional discharge was inappropriate and ordered the hybrid detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision as reasonable, finding the appellant was not in a position to be in the community at the time of the hearing.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated July 18, 2018, regarding the detention of an individual with a major mental illness.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was necessary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's application of the legal test for assessing ongoing risk or in its determination that detention was the appropriate disposition given the appellant's mental condition, history of non-compliance with medication, substance abuse, and prior violent conduct.

An appellant who was found not criminally responsible appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention in a forensic hospital.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge but the primary issue was whether the Board should exercise its inquisitorial powers to investigate alternative community residential arrangements.

The Court of Appeal found that while a conditional discharge was not available due to the appellant's significant risk to public safety, the Board had erred in failing to properly exercise its inquisitorial duties to break the residential impasse.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 10, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for possession of weapons dangerous, sought a conditional discharge or alternatively a new hearing.

The Board maintained a detention order in the general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with relaxed reporting requirements.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable due to inadequate reasons regarding whether the appellant's risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge.

The court directed the Board to reconsider the disposition at its next hearing with proper consideration of relevant factors, including mechanisms for securing attendance at hospital and the timing of any intervention.

The appellants, Chinese and Dominican citizens detained by the Canada Border Services Agency in immigration proceedings, appealed a Superior Court order dismissing their application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The lower court found no deprivation of liberty and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the appeal should proceed to the Divisional Court under section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act or to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that because the lower court's dismissal was based on a finding of no deprivation of liberty, the statutory criteria in section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act were not met, and therefore the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a certiorari decision that refused to quash an Ontario Court of Justice decision denying the return of marijuana seized from the appellant after charges of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking were withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish he was lawfully entitled to possession of the cannabis and did not have a licence authorizing possession at the time of seizure.

The certiorari judge did not err in concluding that no error or excess of jurisdiction occurred.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition detaining a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) accused in a secure forensic unit.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board failed to properly apply the legal test for "significant threat" under section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, which requires a serious risk of serious physical or psychological harm from criminal conduct.

The Board's reasons did not adequately analyze either the risk or gravity of psychological harm.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was directed.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the standard of review applicable to insurance arbitral decisions resolving priority disputes under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The first appeal involved a claimant listed as an excluded driver on his parents' policy who was injured as a passenger in another vehicle.

The second involved a claimant similarly listed as an excluded driver who was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

The central issue was whether excluded drivers could qualify as "insured persons" under the SABS definition and thus trigger priority coverage under their parents' policies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for such arbitral decisions is reasonableness, not correctness, and that arbitrators' interpretations of the SABS and insurance policies within their specialized expertise warrant deference.

The appellant was charged with violations of the Building Code Act for failing to comply with six orders to comply issued in 2013.

At trial, the appellant sought disclosure of prior charges and prosecutions, including orders to comply issued in 1995 and 1996 that had resulted in withdrawn charges.

The justice of the peace granted the disclosure order.

The respondent municipality applied for certiorari to quash the disclosure order.

The Superior Court granted certiorari, finding the earlier orders were distinct due to different compliance deadlines.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred by failing to apply the substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice test and by prematurely determining the relevance issue mid-trial.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board dated January 5, 2017, which ordered his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Provincial Forensic Division.

The appellant did not challenge the Board's finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety but argued that his transfer from CAMH to Waypoint was not necessary and appropriate for managing that risk.

He contended that the Board failed to consider the context of his behaviour and that the announcement of his transfer triggered his deterioration.

He also argued the Board did not give sufficient weight to the disruption of his therapeutic and familial relationships.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and amply supported by evidence.

An appeal against an Ontario Review Board disposition denying expanded privileges and absolute discharge for an individual found not criminally responsible on a charge of criminal harassment.

The appellant argued the Board failed to conduct a separate and specific analysis of whether his conduct would constitute a serious criminal offence with real risk of physical or psychological harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons demonstrated proper consideration of the seriousness of the offence and the risk to the community.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention on a General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with the ability to live in community accommodation approved by the person in charge of CAMH.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that an absolute discharge was not appropriate given clear evidence that the appellant would stop taking medication, decompensate quickly, and engage in threatening and aggressive behaviour.

The court also rejected the argument that a conditional discharge was the least restrictive appropriate order, finding that the detention order with community living possibilities was reasonable given the appellant's homelessness and ongoing risk of harm.

The appellant appealed a finding of incapacity to consent to anti-psychotic medication made by a physician and confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on criminal charges and was detained at a psychiatric facility.

Subsequently, her appeal of the NCR verdict was allowed and a new trial was ordered, but she remained detained under the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the incapacity finding was not moot despite the successful appeal of the NCR verdict, as the appellant remained lawfully detained at the time the incapacity determination was made.

The Court upheld the Board's finding that although the appellant could understand relevant information about treatment, she could not apply it to her own circumstances due to her delusional disorder.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 20, 2016.

The hospital had recommended a conditional discharge, but the Board imposed a detention order with conditions.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on multiple grounds, including the refusal to order a conditional discharge and the failure to order a second opinion or independent assessment in light of a potential treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning regarding the appellant's non-compliance with essential drug treatment and the requirement for hospital-approved residence.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the responding party's cross-appeal, arguing that the responding party was required to obtain leave to cross-appeal because the cross-appeal raised different issues than the moving party's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 61.07(1.1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a respondent may serve a notice of cross-appeal without obtaining leave if the appellant has already been granted leave to appeal, regardless of whether the cross-appeal relates to different issues.

The appellant, a university student, was suspended by the President of York University for alleged misconduct without a hearing.

The appellant sued the President and the University, pleading misfeasance in a public office.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that the President was not a public officer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was not plain and obvious that the tort of misfeasance in a public office is restricted to public officers subject to the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and the claim was permitted to proceed.

The appellant received a retroactive lump sum payment for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and brought a proposed class action claiming interest on the payment.

The Attorney General moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment but allowed the claims based on constructive trust and the inherent power of the court to award interest to proceed.

On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious that none of the claims could succeed, as the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Canada Pension Plan does not provide for the payment of interest on benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and the action was dismissed.