Administrative Law - ODC

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their applications for bad faith eviction and tenant rights violations.

The landlords had served an N12 notice for purchaser's own use, but title was ultimately taken by a corporation.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the landlords did not act in bad faith at the time the notice was served.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the tenant rights application on the basis of res judicata, as the issues could have been raised in a prior proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order of the Surveyor General confirming a survey plan that fixed the position of a concession road allowance and shore road allowance across their property.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by disregarding an original monument and relying on a standard iron bar as the best evidence of the inner limit of the shore road allowance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the application of the hierarchy of survey evidence and no palpable and overriding error in the Surveyor General's factual findings regarding the monuments.

The appellant, a recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had upheld the Director's decision to recover an overpayment resulting from a rent reduction ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant argued the rent reduction constituted damages for breach of contract and should be exempt from income calculations under the regulations.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal correctly interpreted the regulation to exclude only damages for pain and suffering or actual expenses from injury.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's procedural practice of bifurcating human rights challenges from the merits of the appeal, finding it consistent with procedural fairness.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was cancelled in 1997 following a criminal conviction, applied for a new Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Registrar referred the application to the Discipline Committee pursuant to s. 33(15) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing he should be treated as a new applicant under s. 18 and that s. 33(15) could not apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the legislative amendment applied retrospectively as its purpose was to protect the public, not to punish, and the Registrar did not breach any duty of fairness.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.

The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.

Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.

The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program brought motions to dismiss three appeals to the Divisional Court due to a six-year delay in perfecting them.

The appellants argued the delay was due to awaiting outcomes of second claims, waiting for appellate decisions, a computer error by the Registrar, and clinic workload.

The court found it could not assess the potential prejudice to the Director without the medical records and Tribunal notes, which would be before the full panel.

The motions were adjourned to the panel hearing the appeals.

The applicant, a paralegal, sought a declaration that the Law Society of Upper Canada's by-laws regulating paralegals under the Access for Justice Act, 2006 were of no force and effect, arguing the Act infringed s. 15 of the Charter.

He also sought judicial review of the Lieutenant Governor's decision to grant royal assent to the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that occupational status is not a protected ground under s. 15 of the Charter.

Furthermore, the court held that the granting of royal assent is a constitutional convention not subject to judicial review.

The applicant sought a stay of ongoing Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) proceedings pending an application for judicial review, alleging bias based on public comments made by the OSC Chair.

The OSC brought a cross-motion to quash the judicial review application for prematurity.

The single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, holding that prematurity should be decided by the full panel.

The judge also dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the general rule that tribunal proceedings should be completed before judicial review is entertained.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had found that the grievor committed serious misconduct but revoked all discipline, including a transfer, because an initial reprimand was given without union representation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that while the arbitrator reasonably found a breach of the representation clause, automatically revoking the transfer was unreasonable given the irrevocable breakdown of the working relationship.

The court quashed the revocation of the transfer but upheld the revocation of the suspension.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a dangerous pursuit.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer and the Commission applied the wrong test by focusing on the objective reasonableness of the force used rather than the appellant's subjective 'sole purpose' for discharging the firearm under s. 8 of O. Reg. 546/99.

The appeal was allowed and the charge of discreditable conduct was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP refusing to pay medical accounts submitted more than six months after services were rendered.

The applicants argued that the delay, caused by the incompetence of their office manager, constituted 'extenuating circumstances' under the Health Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the General Manager's decision, finding it reasonable to distinguish between catastrophic events beyond a physician's control and administrative or operational errors within their control.

The applicant, a citizens' group, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto and TTC's decision to construct a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West.

The applicant argued the project breached s. 24(1) of the Planning Act for failing to conform with the official plan and that the City failed to complete a proper environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the environmental assessment challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the Minister's decision to refuse a 'bump up' request.

The Court also held that the project conformed with the transportation policies of the newly approved Official Plan.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that he failed to meet the standards of business conduct expected of a CEO and imposing sanctions under s. 127 of the Securities Act.

The Commission found the appellant had primary responsibility for a stock subscription program that lacked commercial justification and failed to take steps to contain the situation when problems emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the Commission's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence.

On consent, the appeal regarding sanctions was allowed and remitted to the Commission for a new hearing.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a $2,000 rent abatement.

The tenants had sought the abatement on the basis that the landlord improperly cashed a rent cheque.

The hearings officer informed the tenants this was not a proper ground, but fashioned a new basis for the abatement on her own accord without giving the landlord notice.

The Divisional Court held this constituted a denial of natural justice, allowed the appeal, and quashed the Tribunal's orders.

The moving parties brought a motion to strike or stay the responding party's application for judicial review of a real estate discipline committee decision.

The responding party, a real estate agent, had been penalized by the discipline committee but failed to appeal the decision through the internal appeals process before seeking judicial review.

The court granted the motion and struck the application, applying the general principle of administrative law that alternative remedies must be exhausted before resorting to judicial proceedings.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash summonses issued by the Commissioner of the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, arguing the inquiry had unconstitutionally evolved into a criminal investigation into specific individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the inquiry's dominant purpose was to investigate municipal good government under section 100 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Commissioner was acting within her mandate by investigating potential misconduct as part of a broader fact-finding process, and that the incidental overlap with potential criminal matters did not render the inquiry ultra vires.

The applicant school board brought a motion to exclude the public, specifically the requester, from the hearing of an application involving sealed materials.

The applicant argued that the requester's presence would render the application moot by revealing the subject matter and that referring to sealed materials without reading them would inhibit counsel's effectiveness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the normal practice of referring the court to sealed materials without reading them aloud is sufficient and does not inhibit counsel.

The court emphasized that access to the court is a super-ordinate value under s. 135 of the Courts of Justice Act and there was no serious risk of injustice.

The respondent university brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review of a Human Rights Commission decision.

The applicant had alleged that the university's use of the LSAT in its law school admissions policy was discriminatory.

The court found that the applicant's case was virtually identical to another recently dismissed application, relying on the same arguments and factum.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable chance of success and constituted an abuse of process, the court granted the motion and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the respondent union's General Secretary to proceed with a complaints investigation.

The court assumed without deciding that the General Secretary's investigation was subject to judicial review.

However, the court dismissed the application because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and the applicant had not exhausted other adequate remedies, specifically seeking reconsideration from the General Secretary.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide particulars of prejudice or evidence of bad faith, and the court noted it should be cautious in interfering with trade union affairs.

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) sought judicial review of an interim order by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that allowed 11 tenants to give representative evidence on behalf of 312 tenants in a rent abatement application.

The tenants claimed the MTHA interfered with their reasonable enjoyment during balcony repairs.

The Divisional Court granted leave for judicial review due to urgency and quashed the Tribunal's order.

The Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Tenant Protection Act to permit a representative action, distinguishing it from the former Landlord and Tenant Act which explicitly allowed such proceedings.