Administrative Law - OCA

The Chief Electoral Officer appealed a decision allowing the Conservative Fund Canada to amend its 2004 and 2006 election expenses returns to reflect GST rebates received under the Excise Tax Act.

The Fund argued that the Canada Elections Act required election expenses to be reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), meaning expenses should be reported net of GST rebates.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plain wording of the Canada Elections Act does not require general election expenses to be reported in accordance with GAAP.

The Court found this interpretation consistent with Parliament's intent to maintain a level political playing field through equal spending limits.

The appellant appealed a decision declining to quash a municipal by-law.

The municipality had failed to provide proper notification to the appellant that the by-law had been passed.

The application judge found no bad faith on the part of the municipality and no prejudice to the appellant, and thus declined to exercise his discretion under s. 273(1) of the Municipal Act to quash the by-law.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Municipal Board's finding that an amendment to the City of London's Official Plan (OPA 403) was valid.

The appellants argued that OPA 403 impermissibly delegated authority by making a separate guideline determinative in designating woodlands as significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondents that the Official Plan remains paramount and the City's discretion is not fettered by the guideline.

The appellant hospital appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an individual found not criminally responsible for first degree murder.

The Board had previously adjourned the hearing to obtain an independent psychiatric assessment regarding the individual's past criminal involvement.

Despite the assessment failing to resolve these concerns, the Board's majority granted the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable due to an unexplained gap in its reasoning regarding the relevance of the past criminal conduct and its failure to address inadequacies in the proposed treatment plan for monitoring medication compliance.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner appealed a Divisional Court decision which held that confidential mediation and settlement records involving the Liquor Control Board of Ontario were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the term 'litigation' in the second branch of s. 19 of FIPPA includes both mandatory and consensual mediation.

The court held that the exemption is not limited to documents falling within common law litigation privilege, and therefore the disputed records were protected from disclosure.

The respondent chiropractor commenced treating his cohabiting partner as a patient.

The discipline committee found him guilty of professional misconduct by sexual abuse under the Health Professions Procedural Code, which mandates a five-year licence revocation for sexual intercourse with a patient.

The Divisional Court set aside the decision, ruling that the committee must determine whether the sexual activity arose out of the spousal relationship or the professional-patient relationship.

The Court of Appeal allowed the College's appeal, holding that the Code requires no such inquiry; the offence is complete upon the concurrence of a sexual relationship and a health care professional-patient relationship.

The appellant, a federal civil servant, brought an action in the Superior Court claiming damages for harassment and mistreatment by his supervisors, alleging this was in retaliation for his whistle-blowing activities.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that section 236 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act explicitly ousts the jurisdiction of the civil courts over disputes that can be grieved under the Act, regardless of whether the grievance can be referred to independent third-party adjudication.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing the Ministry of Transportation's award of a highway construction contract to the lowest bidder.

The second-lowest bidder had argued the winning bid was non-compliant because it declared no imported steel, despite design drawings specifying rolled steel beams unavailable in Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Ministry's investigation and subsequent conclusion that the winning bid was compliant—based on the bidder's intention to use Canadian welded steel that met structural standards—was reasonable.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

Following the court's conclusion on a related appeal, counsel for the applicant conceded that the application for judicial review could not succeed.

The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the application.

The appellants, commercial fishers on Lake Erie, challenged the regulatory regime under which the provincial Minister of Natural Resources imposed catch quotas for walleye and yellow perch on their licences.

They argued that the federal Fisheries Act and regulations did not validly delegate this authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister fettered her discretion and acted unreasonably by adopting the catch recommendations of the international Lake Erie Committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Governor in Council validly sub-delegated the authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister's reliance on the Committee's recommendations was both reasonable and not a fettering of discretion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for an order compelling the City of Toronto to issue a building permit for a restaurant exceeding the size permitted by the applicable by-law.

The appellant argued he had a legal non-conforming use because his restaurant exceeded the size limit before it was destroyed by fire, and he challenged the validity of several by-laws for lack of notice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the appellant lost any legal non-conforming use when he previously reduced the restaurant's size to comply with the by-law to obtain a liquor license, and that the City had complied with the notice requirements for the by-laws.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision ordering his surrender to the United States for prosecution.

The applicant argued that the surrender unjustifiably infringed his section 6 Charter rights, that the Crown's conduct regarding plea bargains and stayed charges constituted an abuse of process under section 7, and that the Minister failed to properly consider extenuating family circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision reasonable and no abuse of process by the Crown.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his statement of claim, which alleged negligence and malfeasance by the ODSP for denying him disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim lacked material facts regarding his medical condition and how it met the criteria for benefits.

The court held that a mere denial of benefits does not establish negligence or misfeasance in public office, and declined to grant leave to amend.

The appellant, an inmate serving a six-year sentence, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application challenging his classification as a medium security risk.

While the appeal was pending, the appellant was placed on day parole, rendering the classification issue moot.

The Court of Appeal also found that the grounds of appeal lacked merit, as the correctional authorities had the jurisdiction to delegate the grievance decision and retained discretion to consider factors beyond the Custody Rating Score.

The appeal was dismissed.

The deceased's ex-wife and his common-law partner both claimed entitlement to his surviving spousal pension benefit.

The OMERS Appeal Sub-committee found in favour of the common-law partner.

The ex-wife successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the legal obligation to give reasons is correctness, not reasonableness.

Applying a functional approach, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient as they explained why the decision was made and permitted effective judicial review.

The appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages arising from charges brought under the Travel Industry Act.

The appellant argued the Registrar was negligent by failing to provide notice and a hearing for its licence renewal under s. 6 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to pay the prescribed fee to apply for renewal.

Consequently, there was no pending application and no obligation to provide notice or a hearing.

The respondent purchased timber from the Crown and harvested it pursuant to a licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994.

The price included a Residual Value Charge (RVC).

The respondent successfully applied for a declaration that the RVC was an unlawful tax.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in applying the test for distinguishing regulatory charges from taxes.

The RVC is a proprietary charge and a legitimate component of the price of timber set by the Crown as owner of the resource, not a tax.

The appellant, appearing in person, sought an adjournment of his appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a related matter concerning the Board's Charter jurisdiction.

The respondents opposed the adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment, noting that the appellant's status would not change and there would be no detriment to the public interest, while a Supreme Court decision could affect further proceedings.

The appellants commenced a proposed class action alleging that the procedures used to process claims for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits were inefficient and procedurally unfair, claiming negligence and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim but granted leave to amend the s. 7 claim solely regarding the failure to give reasons for denying benefits.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and s. 15 claims, but expanded the leave to amend the s. 7 claim to include other potential procedural fairness deficiencies beyond just the failure to give reasons.