Administrative Law - ODC

The 90-year-old appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his 18-year tenancy for the landlords' own use.

The landlords sought possession so one of them could move in to care for his 94-year-old father.

The tenant argued the eviction was a reprisal for a bed bug complaint and raised issues regarding the notice of termination, relief from eviction, and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice issue was a question of mixed fact and law outside its jurisdiction, the LTB member properly exercised discretion under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act to delay eviction, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant's son, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant himself, was improperly attempting to represent his mother and pursue the litigation on his own behalf without her sworn authorization or proper medical evidence of her capacity.

Concluding that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent prior orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding.

The developer and the municipality brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.

They argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the statutory appeal scheme and that the applicant lacked public interest standing.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was ousted or that standing should be denied.

The court also partially granted a motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit, striking two expert reports but allowing correspondence and video evidence to proceed to the panel.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and apply for judicial review of three Landlord and Tenant Board orders, including a 2023 eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant's challenges were brought after the statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court denied the extension for the 2022 orders and the judicial review application due to lengthy delay and lack of merit.

However, the court granted a short extension of time to appeal the 2023 eviction order, imposing strict conditions including the payment of ongoing rent.

A group of patients sought leave to intervene in an appeal brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding an interlocutory stay of a s. 87 application to compel a physician's cooperation with an investigation.

The patients sought to protect their privacy interests in their medical records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, finding it premature as the appeal only concerned the interlocutory stay and not the underlying application.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the patients' right to renew their motion if the underlying application proceeds.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review challenging mid-hearing procedural rulings made by the Law Society Tribunal.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering the dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to prematurity.

The applicant failed to identify any exceptional circumstances justifying interference with the ongoing administrative process.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature and an abuse of process designed to interrupt a hearing nearing completion.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding the employer's refusal to disclose a commercial Master Services Agreement (MSA) with a third party.

The union alleged the refusal violated the employer's duty to not interfere with union representation and the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions to deny full disclosure, find the initial bad faith bargaining complaint premature, and later order only partial disclosure based on specific bargaining concessions, were all reasonable and consistent with established labour jurisprudence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a single member of the Law Society Tribunal, Appeal Division, which struck his appeal book for including fresh evidence without leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant was directed to exhaust his internal remedies by bringing a motion to admit fresh evidence before the panel hearing his appeal.

The applicants, trustees of multi-employer pension plans, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of confidential actuarial valuation reports to a representative of a rival union.

The applicants argued that disclosure would cause harm during the construction industry's 'raiding season'.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the commissioner's order, finding that the commissioner applied an overly burdensome standard of proof and an overly stringent test for causation of harm under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court held that the applicants only needed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm, which was met given the highly competitive context of union raiding.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal committee decision upholding the designation of his two dogs as 'Dangerous Dogs' after they were involved in an incident that resulted in the death of another dog.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness and that the committee erred in its interpretation of the by-law because it could not determine which specific dog caused the fatal injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and that the committee's decision to designate both dogs was reasonable given their joint involvement in the attack.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission suspending its liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including allegations of procedural fairness, improper admission of evidence, incorrect burden of proof, improper adverse inference, and failure to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to any of the grounds and concluding that the Board's reasons, while sparse, were sufficient.

The appellant, an internationally trained teacher from France, appealed the refusal of the Ontario College of Teachers Accreditation Committee to grant her a certificate of qualification.

The Committee found she met the linguistic and degree requirements but concluded her distance education program did not meet the professional education requirement.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it focused on extraneous factors, such as the program being online and not granting a diploma, rather than assessing whether the program was substantially different from an accredited Ontario program.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Committee for reassessment.

The applicant physician brought an appeal and an application for judicial review challenging an interlocutory decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ruled it had jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding patients not specifically named in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for judicial review for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process, as the Committee reasonably concluded it had jurisdiction.

The Court also quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision and an Appeal Panel's interlocutory decision refusing a stay.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the applicant must exhaust his internal remedies before the Law Society Appeal Panel before seeking review by the Court.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for purchasing and administering illegal, unlabelled drugs, and the subsequent penalty of a two-year suspension and $25,000 in costs.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate reasons regarding credibility findings, the admission of hearsay, and consideration of a prior racing commission decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were adequate for appellate review, the evidentiary rulings were proper, and the penalty and costs were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The City of Port Colborne sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which found that Nyon Oil Inc. had standing to appeal the City's refusal to amend its official plan and zoning by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and erred in finding Nyon was an 'applicant' under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine its own scope and reasonably concluded that the City acted as Nyon's agent in applying for the amendments.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering the production of their personnel files in relation to a human rights complaint.

After the police service confirmed no responsive records existed, the respondents argued the application was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy remained.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding police disciplinary records should be applied in a genuine adversarial context.

Tarion Warranty Corporation appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the registration of a builder, Riva's Emporium Ltd. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that Tarion unreasonably extended its requirements for financial information was unreasonable.

The Court also held that the Tribunal failed to recognize the seriousness of the builder's past breaches, resulting in the imposition of unreasonable, redundant, and ultra vires conditions for registration.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a full hearing.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of the top ten medical procedures billed to OHIP by the highest-billing general practitioner in Toronto.

The Ministry argued the records constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the physician was not identifiable from the requested records.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, inmates awaiting trial at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, brought an application for judicial review challenging the implementation of a new telephone system that imposed an automatic twenty-minute time limit on outgoing calls.

They argued this restriction violated their freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter and section 5 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no statutory or Charter breach, and held that any such breach would be saved by section 1 of the Charter.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the application for pre-trial inmates, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.