Administrative Law - ODC

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board decision dated May 4, 2021.

The court considered the factors under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court found the delay of over four years was very long, lacked a good explanation, and caused prejudice to the responding party, which no longer exists.

Furthermore, the court found the merits of the proposed judicial review were not strong.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications regarding the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act and a claim for a rent rebate.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the applicability of the Act was res judicata due to a prior final order.

Furthermore, the Board correctly applied section 135.1(5) of the Act to validate a previously non-compliant rent increase because the tenant had paid it for over 12 months and the matter was not finally determined before the statutory deadline.

The court also dismissed the appellant's allegations of institutional bias.

The moving parties (Ontario) sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay an earlier order on an expedited basis.

The court declined to schedule the stay motion before a single judge prior to the leave to appeal motion, noting the responding parties needed time to respond to new affidavit material and that the matter was better suited for a panel.

The court established a schedule for the exchange of materials for the leave to appeal motion to be heard in writing by a panel.

The applicants, the City of Toronto and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim injunction to stop an arbitration between the respondents, Resource Productivity & Recovery Authority and Stewardship Ontario.

The applicants argued that the arbitration was not the proper forum to challenge a funding obligation decision and sought to have the matter determined by judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the arbitration to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a work jurisdiction dispute over exterior concrete formwork at a hospital construction project.

The Board had upheld the employer's assignment of the work to a composite crew of Carpenters and Labourers, finding that the Labourers' collective agreement did not explicitly claim the disputed work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that the Board was not bound to follow its prior decisions where the circumstances or arguments differed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision not to process an application for the renewal of a body rub parlour licence.

The licence had automatically terminated under the municipal by-law when the controlling interest in the applicant corporation was transferred following the death of its principal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the automatic termination constituted a lawful revocation under the by-law, which permanently reduced the number of available licences and left the City with no authority to issue a new one.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that denied her compensation for mental or nervous shock following the murder of her son.

The Board had found she was a victim and suffered the injury, but erroneously applied s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act to preclude an award.

On consent, the Divisional Court set aside the decision, awarded funeral expenses, and remitted the matter to a new panel to assess the quantum of compensation for nervous shock without considering s. 17(1).

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision determining compensation for the City of Toronto's expropriation of subsurface easements for existing pipelines.

The appellant argued the Board erred by denying damages for business losses caused by delay and by failing to award interest and costs.

The appellant also sought to adduce fresh evidence to increase its claim for injurious affection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that there was no causal nexus between the expropriation and the business losses was reasonable.

The Court also refused to admit the fresh evidence, as it could have been adduced earlier and would not have affected the result.

The City of Vaughan appealed a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment, arguing that s. 20(1)(a) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act provided complete immunity against the plaintiffs' $151 million claim for malfeasance and negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged the City deliberately delayed their zoning applications, causing them to lose the opportunity to develop their land before retroactive legislative amendments made the development impossible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs' cause of action and some damages accrued prior to the legislative amendments, meaning statutory immunity did not completely bar the claim.

The court also reduced the motion judge's substantial indemnity costs award from $169,156.30 to $119,156.30.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses, which found he committed professional misconduct while providing in-home nursing care.

The misconduct included failing to maintain nursing standards and administering a liquid without patient consent.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Panel's factual and credibility findings were amply supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs of $8,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash two notices of appeal filed by the responding parties.

The responding parties sought to appeal a decision dismissing their application for an order that the moving party breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The court held that the Act is a complete code and only provides a right of appeal for orders made under section 10.

Since no section 10 order was made, there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted and the notices of appeal were quashed.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion to adduce fresh evidence and their appeal, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

Although the respondent's partial indemnity costs amounted to $12,875, it sought a reduced award of $4,000 to avoid inhibiting self-represented parties from pursuing appeal rights.

The court found the issues were not complex and the requested amount was modest, fixing costs at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The City of Oshawa appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that repealed an interim control by-law prohibiting the establishment of methadone clinics in the Central Business District.

The by-law was passed following ratepayer resistance to the respondent's proposed clinic.

The OMB found no legitimate planning rationale for the by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OMB had jurisdiction to determine the planning rationale and that its decision, reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, was supported by the evidence and established policies.

The successful applicant sought costs of $98,000 on a substantial indemnity basis following a judicial review of a decision revoking his licence.

The court noted the substantial consequence of the matter and the time required, but found the claimed amount exceeded what was reasonably recoverable and what the respondent might have anticipated.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $60,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by deciding the matter on the issue of delay without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.

The applicant's own delay in applying for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by his impecuniosity.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.

The applicant County sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that private-home day care providers were employees of the County for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had applied the common law 'total relationship' and 'organization/integration' tests to conclude the providers were employees.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable.

The majority held that the Tribunal ignored or irrationally discounted evidence demonstrating that the providers were independent contractors, such as their contracts, tax filings, and level of independence.

The Ministry appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding that the respondent was a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Ministry argued the Tribunal failed to consider sedentary employment possibilities and relied on unverified medical details.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law, was entitled to consider the applicant's specific circumstances, and had ample evidence to support its factual findings.

The appeal was allowed only on consent to amend the starting date of payments.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought an application for judicial review of an interim decision made by the Board of Inquiry regarding the production of records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing hearing before the Board.

The Court held that the Board's decision was a reasonable exercise of its discretion at a preliminary stage, particularly in applying the balancing test from A.M. v. Ryan and considering the confidentiality undertaking in place.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer against the Commission.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief pending the determination of its application for a declaration that the Minister of Health acted unlawfully in refusing to recommend its generic drug for inclusion in the Drug Benefit Formulary.

The Minister had reconsidered its recommendation after a Federal Court decision quashed the applicant's Notice of Compliance, despite a subsequent stay of that decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Minister's refusal was motivated by a desire to protect the public interest, and therefore the applicant failed to meet the balance of convenience requirement for interim relief.