ODC 2004

The Ministry of the Attorney General brought an application for judicial review regarding a freedom of information request.

During the hearing, the Divisional Court panel asked counsel whether the requester should be permitted to bring an application under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act that would breach a confidentiality undertaking previously given by his lawyer during negotiations.

The court adjourned the application to allow counsel time to prepare an answer to this pivotal question.

The tenant gave notice to terminate his residential tenancy, and the landlord subsequently accepted a rental application from a new tenant.

The tenant later requested to delay his departure, which the landlord refused, obtaining an ex parte order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant's motion to set aside the order was denied by the Tribunal.

The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, misapprehension of fact, or wrongful exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in refusing an adjournment or denying discretionary relief.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from the refusal to certify a class action, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff argued for a no-costs or reduced-costs order based on impecuniosity, but the court noted the plaintiff was funded by an environmental organization.

The court found the defendant's bill of costs reasonable given the massive size of the potential claim ($750 million) and fixed costs at $60,149.08 payable forthwith.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Master dismissing its action and ordering payment out of court.

The action, which was over seven years old, had been transferred to Case Management after years of dormancy.

The Master found the appellant had repeatedly breached orders regarding security for costs, delivery of a release, and provision of damages calculations and documentation.

The Divisional Court held that the Master did not err in principle or in the exercise of his discretion under Rules 60.12 and 77.10(7) to dismiss the action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of records concerning a student's behaviour to the student's father.

The board argued the records were exempt under s. 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was not unreasonable for the adjudicator to conclude the board failed to discharge its burden of proof, given the lack of evidence of threatening behaviour by the father or psychiatric evidence regarding the son's propensity to carry out past threats.

The Government of Ontario applied for judicial review of the Fifth Triennial Report of the Provincial Judges Remuneration Commission, which recommended a 21% salary increase for provincial judges.

The Ontario Conference of Judges brought a separate application for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to implement the recommendations.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commission's recommendations are subject to judicial review on a standard of patent unreasonableness, the Government's application must be dismissed due to its failure to exhaust internal reconsideration remedies under the Framework Agreement and its excessive delay in bringing the application.

The court granted the Ontario Conference of Judges' application and ordered the Government to implement the recommendations retroactively.

An erratum and addendum was issued on consent of all counsel to correct a date in paragraph 69 of the court's reasons released on June 21, 2004.

The date 'April 1, 2002' was deleted and replaced with 'April 1, 2001'.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding he acted as an unregistered adviser and imposing sanctions, including a $300,000 costs order, for failing to disclose conflicts of interest while recommending securities at investment seminars.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was reasonableness for the merits and public interest findings.

The court upheld the Commission's findings that the appellant was in the business of advising and that his failure to disclose conflicts was contrary to the public interest.

However, the court found the Commission's process for determining the $300,000 costs award was procedurally unfair and remitted the costs issue back to the Commission.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering rent reductions for two tenants due to their inability to use their balconies during a restoration project.

The Tribunal had rejected the landlord's proven costs and instead based the reduction on the 'value' of the balconies, awarding a 10% rent abatement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal breached natural justice by adopting a new interpretation of the regulation and calculating value without giving the parties an opportunity to call evidence or make submissions on that issue.

The matter was remitted to a different Tribunal member.

The appellant, a member of a police services board, appealed a decision of a civilian commission finding him guilty of misconduct.

The appellant argued that the panel lost jurisdiction due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the same three members who adjudicated the hearing had previously participated in the investigation and the decision to hold an inquiry.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the merging of investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions by the panel members created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decisions of the commission were quashed and the matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision dismissing a grievance concerning a teacher's teaching assignment upon her return from pregnancy leave.

The teacher, who previously taught Senior French, was assigned to teach Senior Science upon her return.

The arbitration board found no violation of the reinstatement or non-reprisal provisions of the Employment Standards Act, concluding that her 'position' was as a teacher at the school, not a specific subject assignment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding it was reasonable given the annual nature of teaching assignments and the principal's statutory authority.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the Complaints Committee's dismissal of his complaints against three physicians.

The applicant disagreed with the physicians' medical opinions that his spinal condition was congenital rather than work-related.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent physicians.

In supplementary reasons, the Divisional Court amended its previous ruling on costs at the request of the respondents.

The court deleted the original paragraph regarding costs and substituted a new paragraph directing all counsel to address the court in writing on whether costs should be assessed or fixed, and if fixed, the quantum of such costs.

The applicants had filed a bill of costs seeking partial indemnity costs of $308,926.84.

The applicant sought judicial review of an employment standards officer's order finding it to be a related employer to a bankrupt company and ordering it to pay over $500,000 in vacation, termination, and severance pay.

The court exercised its discretion to permit judicial review because the applicant lacked the funds to pay the deposit required for a mandatory review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The court quashed the officer's order, finding no evidence to support the conclusion that the applicant was created with the intent or effect of defeating the purposes of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant, a physician previously disciplined for professional misconduct, brought an application for judicial review challenging a College by-law regarding the public availability of disciplinary information.

In this motion, the applicant sought an interim order banning the publication of his name and allowing him to use initials in the court record.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the disciplinary information had been public for over 13 years and there was no risk to the administration of justice or need to protect societal values of superordinate importance that would justify an exception to the open court principle.

The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law applied for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a dispute between a school board and a special education tribunal.

The existing parties either consented, took no position, or did not oppose the application.

The court granted leave to intervene to assist by way of argument on whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to order a placement not set out in the school board's special education plan.