Other Tribunals - OCA

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the hospital report and the treating psychiatrist's testimony provided a reasonable basis for the Board to conclude that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, particularly to the victim of the index offence and his own family.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the disposition had been overtaken by a subsequent disposition of the Board.

The court found no pressing issue of law to justify proceeding with the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned a Social Benefits Tribunal ruling regarding her disability support claim.

The Divisional Court had characterized the Tribunal's failure to accept certain medical evidence as an error of law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed all the evidence, including medical reports and the appellant's testimony, and that the Divisional Court had improperly interfered with the Tribunal's factual findings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter issues raised were bound by previous decisions and that the Board's decision was reasonable on the record.

The Court also held that the Board did not err by failing to initiate its own inquiries beyond the material placed before it.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

The Board found that the appellant would stop his medication and abuse substances if given an absolute discharge, but failed to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's failure to specifically inquire into the availability and propriety of a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition was an error of law.

The Court also noted the Board improperly considered non-conviction charges in its risk assessment.

The disposition was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient, appealed a Superior Court decision upholding the Consent and Capacity Board's findings that she was incapable of consenting to treatment and managing her property.

The Board found that while the appellant could understand relevant information, her delusional disorder prevented her from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal tests from Starson v. Swaze and that its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the medical evidence.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition granting the respondent an absolute discharge.

The respondent had been found not guilty of second-degree murder by reason of insanity in 1983.

The Board concluded the respondent posed a minimal risk to the public, relying partly on his attending psychiatrist's belief that he would continue his relationship with the hospital.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that the respondent severed his relationship with the psychiatrist following the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it undermined a central premise of the Board's reasoning, and ordered a new hearing.

The province appealed a trial judgment finding that the exclusion of school-age autistic children from an intensive early intervention program, and the failure to provide equivalent in-school services, infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that the age-based exclusion from the targeted ameliorative program did not amount to age discrimination, and that the disability claim failed because the claimants did not establish that the Minister had denied them the statutory entitlement to appropriate special education under s. 8(3) of the Education Act.

The court further held that, if necessary, the age limit would have been justified under s. 1, given the pressing objectives of early intervention and allocation of scarce resources.

It also held that s. 7 did not impose a positive constitutional obligation to provide the specific therapy sought, that the parents' derivative equality claims failed, and that no private law duty of care supported the negligence claim.

Damages were unavailable alongside declaratory relief absent bad faith, abuse of power, negligence or wilful blindness.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety was not unreasonable, relying on the hospital's report and expert testimony.

The Court found the disposition, which allowed the appellant to reside in approved community housing, to be the least onerous and least restrictive option available.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board unreasonably found him to be a significant risk to the public and misapplied the least restrictive alternative test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that psychiatric evidence supported the significant threat finding and that a detention order with permission to live in the community satisfied the least restrictive alternative standard, particularly given the appellant's history of substance abuse linked to his mental illness.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's constitutional argument and found the finding of detention in hospital was not unreasonable.

However, the Court held that the Board erred by applying an 'appropriate' standard rather than the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test to the level of detention and conditions, contrary to Tulikorpi and Pinet.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for an expedited re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision denying her disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Social Benefits Tribunal had found her credible but concluded she was not a person with a disability because she could cope on a day-to-day basis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal failed to fulfill its statutory duty to give adequate reasons and asked the wrong legal question.

The Court emphasized that social welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly and resolved ambiguities in the claimant's favour.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal with a direction that the appellant is a person with a disability.

Appeal from dismissal of an application for judicial review challenging a university board resolution authorizing closure and sale of two downtown colleges as part of a capital development and financial restructuring strategy.

The majority held that the impugned decision concerned management, property, revenues, expenditures, and facilities within the Board's authority under the Trent University Act, and did not amount to educational policy requiring Senate concurrence.

The majority also held the faculty-member appellants lacked standing to seek judicial review, rejecting both personal and public interest standing arguments.

The appeal on the merits was dismissed, but the costs order below was varied to permit assessment of the party-and-party costs awarded by the Divisional Court if the appellants elected that course.

A dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding the closure decision engaged educational policy and required Senate approval.

The appellant Registrar appealed from a Divisional Court judgment requiring a further registration application under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to be dealt with through the statutory notice and hearing process.

The respondent had previously had his registration revoked and later reapplied without, in the Registrar's view, providing new evidence or a material change in circumstances under s. 8.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 8 establishes a substantive threshold for a renewed application but does not displace the procedural protections in s. 7.

Where the Registrar proposes to refuse registration, notice and an opportunity to require a tribunal hearing must still be provided.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.