ODC 2020

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming appeal to be heard by videoconference.

The court provided detailed instructions on the use of ZOOM, electronic filing via a drop box, formatting of electronic documents, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs materials.

Nation Rise sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke its Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Minister had revoked the approval based on concerns about harm to bat maternity colonies, an issue not raised by the parties before the Environmental Review Tribunal or on appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the Minister's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Minister lacked statutory authority to raise new issues on appeal, applied the wrong legal test by using a precautionary approach, and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court also found the Minister breached procedural fairness by failing to give notice of the new issue and denying the parties an opportunity to make submissions on remedy.

The ERT's approval of the project was reinstated.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The self-represented applicants sought to commence an application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision that barred their right to sue for a workplace injury.

The court found the 17-page notice of application to be improperly drafted as a comprehensive argument rather than a summary of grounds.

The court struck the notice of application but granted the applicants leave to serve and file a fresh, properly formatted notice of application.

A case management endorsement providing directions for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court outlined procedures for videoconferencing, electronic filing of materials, and the format of the hearing.

The court also directed that Ontario's motion to stay the impugned decision be adjourned to the panel hearing the application, rather than being heard by a single judge.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a virtual hearing of an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

The court scheduled the hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court and provided detailed instructions regarding the use of ZOOM, electronic document filing via a drop box, and the submission of factums and compendiums.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory triage decision that refused to schedule a recusal motion during the COVID-19 crisis.

The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials.

The Ministry of Health applied for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination in setting compensation for midwives.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry had abandoned historical compensation principles that aligned midwives with community health centre physicians, leading to an inequitable compensation gap.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings of adverse treatment and the connection to sex were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's remedial orders, which included a 20% retroactive compensation increase and $7,500 per eligible midwife for injury to dignity.

A case management conference was held regarding an application for judicial review and an urgent motion for a stay of a provincial regulation.

The impugned regulation's effective date was delayed, rendering the urgent stay motion unnecessary.

The parties agreed on a schedule for the application, but the court declined to set a hearing date due to the suspension of ordinary court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The urgent stay motion was withdrawn without costs, and the parties were directed to seek further directions for scheduling once court operations resume or via videoconference.

The court issued a case management endorsement providing procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The parties were directed to agree on time allocations for oral argument, file agreements or materials regarding costs, and submit counsel sheets.

The court also noted that an amended version of a prior endorsement would be released to correct unintended repetition and add a neutral citation.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 in the cause of the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule a teleconference with the Divisional Court Administrative Judge.

The moving party sought a stay of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario remedial decision pending the outcome of its judicial review application.

The moving party argued that compliance with the remedial orders would divert critical resources away from the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Divisional Court found that the moving party established a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was granted, and the Tribunal's orders were stayed until 10 days following the release of the judicial review decision.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory evidentiary ruling regarding settlement privilege in one of 11 test cases concerning employee benefits fraud.

The parties had agreed that the ruling in this test case would apply to the other ten.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the agreement to apply the ruling across test cases did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the fragmentation of the administrative process.

The court emphasized that labour arbitration cases should generally be decided finally before judicial review is sought.

During a case management conference, the respondent requested an adjournment of the application for judicial review until an in-person hearing could be held, objecting to a video conference format.

The court dismissed the request, noting that party consent is not required for video hearings under the COVID-19 Practice Direction.

The court found the matter suitable for a video hearing as it relied on a written record with no oral testimony, and emphasized the need to maintain court operations during the pandemic.

During a case management teleconference, the respondent CIBC sought to schedule a motion to quash the appellant's Small Claims Court appeal.

The court noted that the appeal raised arguable issues and that scheduling a video conference hearing on the merits would be more proportionate and efficient than hearing a preliminary motion to quash.

CIBC agreed to withdraw its motion, and the court issued directions for the exchange of materials and the scheduling of the appeal hearing.

A case management conference was held to provide procedural directions for an upcoming application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed via video conference using ZOOM technology.

Directions were provided regarding the use of a password-protected electronic dropbox for document filing, formatting of electronic materials, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs outlines.

The appellant optometrist appealed a decision of the College's discipline committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for the sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing, finding that the discipline committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility assessments.

Specifically, the committee subjected the appellant's evidence to a higher standard of scrutiny than the complainant's evidence, resulting in an unfair proceeding.

The landlord brought an urgent motion to enforce an eviction order during the COVID-19 provincial eviction moratorium, arguing the tenant's continued occupancy jeopardized a real estate closing.

The court first determined that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the order after dismissing the appeal, but the parties agreed to have the judge hear it as a motion for directions under Rule 60.17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sitting as a Superior Court judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the landlord's evidence of harm speculative and noting the moratorium was intended to protect tenants like the respondent, who was unable to move because his new landlord could not evict the existing tenant due to the pandemic.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedural and technological directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court provided instructions on the use of Zoom, electronic document filing via a drop box, hyperlinking in factums, and time allocations for oral argument.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming electronic hearing of a motion for leave to appeal and appeal in a child protection matter.

The court directed that the motion for leave and the appeal be heard together via video conference and provided guidelines for the electronic filing of materials.