Administrative Law - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs, fixed at the agreed amount of $7,500, to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that denied its right to recover wage overpayments made to employees due to a mistake of fact.

The arbitrator had found that the union established the defence of estoppel and that the collective agreement provision relied on the employer only governed the process for recovery, not the absolute entitlement to it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that labour arbitrators have flexibility in applying equitable doctrines like estoppel without requiring a formal, detailed analysis of every component.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring him to complete a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (SCERP) following several adverse event reports at his clinic.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the process was procedurally unfair due to skewed chart selection and alleged bias by the College's assessor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC owed a relatively low degree of procedural fairness which was met, and that its decision was reasonable, justified, and intelligible based on the evidence of poor clinical care and deficient record-keeping.

The applicants sought to challenge Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision requiring security for potential 7-year warranty claims.

The applicants' registration had previously been revoked by a Consent Order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's concern about the risk of major claims was justified and its discretion was exercised reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $22,319.98.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that allowed the withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal by a neighboring developer.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal, which occurred on the eve of the hearing, breached its right to procedural fairness by preventing it from arguing for a cost-sharing condition.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, finding that the issue of procedural fairness is a question of law that should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism requiring leave under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the withdrawal of the appeal was expressly contemplated by the Planning Act and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel private parties to enter into a cost-sharing agreement.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of two determinations made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Tribunal dismissing a recusal motion based on an alleged apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to file the application but ultimately dismissed the judicial review as premature.

The court reaffirmed that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of interlocutory administrative decisions should await the completion of the underlying proceeding, and allegations of bias do not automatically bypass this rule.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union to represent a bargaining unit of operating engineers.

The employer challenged the Board's decision to exclude four working forepersons from the bargaining unit.

The Board had applied the 'majority-of-time' test because the forepersons supervised mixed crews, concluding the employer failed to prove they spent the majority of their time performing or supervising bargaining unit work on the application filing date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's choice and application of the test were reasonable and consistent with its specialized expertise in construction industry labour relations.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that ordered the issuance of insurance agent licences to the respondent.

The respondent had previously made false statements on his licence applications regarding his termination from a bank and had conducted unlicensed insurance activity.

The Tribunal found that despite the misconduct, the respondent was suitable to be licensed subject to strict supervision conditions and a $10,000 penalty.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The Tribunal was entitled to substitute its opinion for that of the FSRA and properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's positive employment record and the context of his misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for substantial interference related to bed bugs in their rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board breached procedural fairness and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board afforded sufficient procedural fairness and properly controlled its own process.

Furthermore, the Court held that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, making reasonableness review inapplicable, and found no error in the Board's application of the law regarding the landlord's maintenance obligations.

The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.

The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.

The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to allow Tenant Duty Counsel to make submissions and by failing to record the entire hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenants had a reasonable opportunity to participate and that Duty Counsel, acting as a support person, had no standing to make submissions after the parties had closed their cases.

The Court also held that the lack of a complete hearing recording did not breach procedural fairness, as the Board's reasons were sufficient for appellate review and no error of law was identified in the Board's refusal to set aside the eviction order.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) not to proceed with his complaint against his former doctor.

The applicant alleged the doctor improperly accessed and added to his medical record after he issued a 'lockbox' directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable as the doctor was authorized to document patient encounters under professional standards pursuant to s. 19(2) of PHIPA.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant was given a full opportunity to respond to the IPC's preliminary views.

Two organizations, York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), sought leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision dismissed most of the applicant's discrimination claims for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to intervene.

The court found that YUSA did not have a direct interest in the narrow limitation period issue before the court, and that BLAC would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicant and risked introducing irrelevant peripheral issues.

The appellant sought judicial review of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

On consent, the Divisional Court quashed the HRTO decisions and remitted the matter for further adjudication without specific directions.

The Court also quashed the LAT decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different adjudicator, with reasons to follow.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to return a portion of the tenant's last month's rent deposit after the tenant terminated the lease early.

The landlord argued the Board was functus officio when it amended its order to reduce the amount owed to the tenant, and that the Board erred by not applying common law expectation damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the principle of functus officio to correct a clerical error, and correctly relied on the specific provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act rather than common law damages.

The applicants, tow truck drivers with decades of experience, sought judicial review of O. Reg. 167/23 under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The regulation disqualified them from obtaining a tow certificate due to mandatory lifetime weapons prohibitions stemming from 20-year-old criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was not ultra vires as it reasonably aligned with the Act's purpose of combating crime in the towing industry.

The Court also dismissed the Charter challenges, holding that the evidentiary record did not establish criminal history as an analogous ground under s. 15, and that the regulatory disqualification constituted neither 'treatment' nor 'punishment' under s. 12.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against her union.

The applicant alleged the union acted discriminatorily and arbitrarily by refusing to file an individual grievance regarding her bumping rights, opting instead for a policy grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and holding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by dismissing the complaint without an oral hearing.

Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that changes to the Ontario Autism Program (OAP) discriminated against a child with autism on the basis of disability.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it unreasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide a rational chain of analysis to support its conclusion that the child experienced adverse treatment based on her disability, as the OAP's funding caps were designed to address inequities and ensure all eligible children received some beneficial services.

The Court declined to remit the issue of disability discrimination back to the Tribunal, concluding that no rational analysis could lead to a finding of discrimination on these facts.

The appellant appealed multiple decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying her Income Replacement Benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as decisions denying an extension of time and a reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory extension and reconsideration decisions.

Regarding the merits, the court held that the LAT's procedural choice to proceed in writing was fair and that the appellant's substantive arguments raised questions of fact, not extricable errors of law.