Administrative Law - OCA

The respondent sought a building permit to raise and renovate a cottage that had been submerged and uninhabitable for 14 years.

The municipality refused, arguing the legal nonconforming use had been lost.

The application judge ordered the permit issued, finding the successive owners' intention to repair preserved the use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, holding that intention alone, without reasonable steps to resume the use, is insufficient to preserve a legal nonconforming use over such an extensive period.

However, the Court declared that the respondent retained a legal nonconforming use of the land for docking boats, though no new structures could be erected.

The appellant union appealed a Divisional Court decision that affirmed an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appellant's interpretation was reasonable, the arbitrator's interpretation was also within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant, a mayor, faced a compliance audit of her election campaign finances which revealed apparent contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act.

The municipal council passed a by-law authorizing the commencement of legal proceedings and retained outside counsel to prosecute.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application to quash the by-law and strike down s. 81 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 81 is not impermissibly vague, does not violate s. 7 of the Charter, and that the delegation of prosecutorial power to outside counsel was lawful and administrative in nature.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The board of arbitration had ruled that the employer's policy of random drug testing for safety-sensitive employees, absent reasonable cause, violated the collective agreement's requirement to treat employees with dignity and respect.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Divisional Court erred in applying the patent unreasonableness standard instead of reasonableness, the board's decision was reasonable.

The board did not err by referencing the 'Canadian model' of arbitral jurisprudence, nor did it improperly rely on facts outside the record or amend the collective agreement.

The appellant appealed a decision confirming the downgrading of his driving licence from Class B to Class G due to a diagnosis of congestive heart failure.

The appellant argued that the decision-makers failed to consider all medical evidence and improperly applied the legislation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's consideration of the evidence or its reliance on nationally recognized medical standards.

The moving parties, three doctors practising cosmetic surgery, sought a stay pending appeal of a Divisional Court decision that permitted the College of Physicians and Surgeons to compel observation of their surgeries as part of a professional misconduct investigation.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, the doctors would suffer irreparable harm from the intrusive nature of the observations, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the lack of urgency and the College's prior acquiescence.

Following an appeal decision, the appellant requested a reconsideration, advising the court that the record regarding the Labour Relations Board proceedings was incomplete.

The appellant sought to proceed with a claim based on the alleged misuse of an Industry Fund.

The Court of Appeal declined to reconsider the matter, finding that the issue of the Board's jurisdiction under section 143 of the Labour Relations Act had not been previously decided by the Board.

The court held that the specialized tribunal should have the first opportunity to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction.

The appellant applied for a declaration that the City of Toronto was deemed to have consented to the demolition of three heritage buildings because it failed to decide the application within the 90-day period under s. 34(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the parties had agreed to extend the time period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's conclusion was reasonable and entitled to deference, as the appellant's communications indicated a willingness to wait for the City's decision.

The appellants, landlords in Oshawa, appealed a judgment ordering them to cease using their properties as lodging houses.

They argued their properties operated as single dwelling establishments for groups of tenants, primarily students.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the properties were rented on a room-by-room, short-term basis, functioning as lodging houses rather than single housekeeping establishments.

The court also rejected the argument that s. 35(2) of the Planning Act precluded considering the relationship among renters.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a participant in the provincial Witness Protection Program, sued the government for breach of contract, negligence, and Charter violations after experiencing significant delays in receiving new identity documents and being terminated from the program.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the government's administration of the program was flawed and delayed, it had exceeded its financial obligations under the agreement, and the appellant's own conduct justified his termination from the program.

The Ontario Racing Commission appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The liability arose after a Commission official informed a raceway that the respondent would not be approved as a starter, leading to his loss of employment, and the Commission subsequently frustrated his efforts to seek a hearing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability for misfeasance in public office, finding the Commission acted with reckless indifference to its statutory obligations by denying the respondent a hearing.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in finding liability for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

The appeal was dismissed and the damages award of $50,000 was upheld.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding a harvest procedure on a game farm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the harvest procedure was simply a hunt by another name.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $9,000.

The appellant, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application to direct the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case regarding his jurisdiction to hear certain evidence.

The Commissioner had ruled he had jurisdiction to hear evidence from a complainant regarding a recent sexual assault by teenagers and the subsequent police investigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Commissioner committed a jurisdictional error by misconstruing the Order in Council that established his mandate.

The Court held that the inquiry's subject matter was limited to historical sexual abuse of young people by persons in authority or positions of trust, and the proposed evidence fell outside this scope and was not reasonably relevant.

The appellant appealed from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board holding that he continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a further review within six months and by keeping him in a medium secure unit despite his progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the treating psychiatrist did not definitively recommend a six-month review and the Board's decision to maintain medium security was reasonable given ongoing concerns about elopement and potential reoffending.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services appealed two Divisional Court decisions quashing its orders to hold hearings into civilian complaints against police officers.

The Divisional Court had held that the Commission failed to specify the allegations with sufficient particularity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the Commission is only required to provide sufficient information to permit the chief of police to reasonably inform the officer of the case to meet, and is not required to draft the actual charge or provide reasons.

The Court also dismissed a cross-appeal, finding that the remedial steps in s. 13(3) of the Regulation do not apply to public complaints of unsatisfactory work performance.

The Maitland Valley Conservation Authority and the Attorney General for Ontario sought leave to appeal a Provincial Court decision dismissing a prosecution against the respondents for constructing a building on a swamp without written permission.

The respondents had obtained a building permit from the municipality, and the Provincial Court judge found they could successfully assert the defence of officially induced error.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the legal effect of a building permit as a defence to prosecution under another Act raises a question of law of broad public significance.

The appellants, two psychiatrists, appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside a Consent and Capacity Board finding.

The Board had found the respondent, who suffers from bipolar affective disorder, incapable of making his own treatment decisions regarding psychiatric medication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was capable of understanding the relevant information and appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.

The Court emphasized that the respondent's refusal was based on a rational evaluation of the medication's negative impact on his scientific research, and that his decision, even if against his best interests, was protected by the Health Care Consent Act and section 7 of the Charter.

The appellant gas company appealed a declaration that the respondent municipality's right to purchase the gas distribution system arose upon the expiry of the 20-year term of their franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the franchise agreement explicitly made the municipality's right to purchase subject to section 10 of the Municipal Franchises Act.

Under section 10, the Ontario Energy Board has the power to renew or extend the franchise.

Therefore, the franchise does not terminate, and the municipality's right to purchase does not arise, if the Board orders an extension.

The appellants sought a stay of a declaration that their restaurant and lounge violated the City's zoning by-law, pending their appeal of that decision.

The effect of the stay would be to adjourn an expedited trial on remedy issues (whether to permanently enjoin the operation).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the appellants failed to establish a serious issue to be adjudicated or irreparable harm, as their business operations had not changed and any harm would be purely economic.

The balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the expedited trial so all issues could be heard in a single appeal.