Administrative Law - ODC

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him from his basement apartment so the landlords' daughter could occupy the unit.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused a further adjournment after his lawyer withdrew, and that the eviction was in bad faith and part of a harassment campaign involving the RCMP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant another adjournment given the history of delays, and holding that the tenant's other arguments raised questions of fact rather than questions of law.

The appellant appealed a Property Standards Order requiring her to remove interior LED lighting that spilled onto her driveway and into a neighbour's home, causing a nuisance.

The City relied on the 'exterior lighting' provision of its Property Standards By-law.

The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the by-law's exterior lighting provisions apply to any lighting that primarily or significantly impacts the exterior, regardless of the physical location of the electrical source.

The appeal was dismissed and the Order to Comply was confirmed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.

The applicant brought a motion within an application for judicial review seeking an order to use only his initials.

Notice of the motion was not given to the media.

The court held that whenever a party seeks to restrict access to a court proceeding, including by requesting permission to use a pseudonym or initials, there is a presumption that notice must be given to the media.

The motion was adjourned to allow the applicant to provide such notice.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their residential tenancy and ordering eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the Board Member made an interim order requiring rent payments into trust and subsequently refused to hear their applications against the landlord when they failed to comply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Member had the statutory authority to control the hearing procedure and that her actions were a model of procedural fairness.

Following the dismissal of her application for judicial review, the applicant opposed an award of costs, arguing the case involved novel human rights issues of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the proceeding was a quest for personal vindication arising from fractious collective bargaining, not a public interest matter.

The court awarded the successful respondents $7,500 in costs, discounting their requested amount of $15,000 to exclude expenses related to the involvement of three intervenors.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that found two special education positions fell within the teachers' bargaining unit rather than being excluded as principal or vice-principal positions.

The school board argued the arbitrator misinterpreted the Education Act and the collective agreements, and that he lost jurisdiction by delaying his decision for over two years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation was not patently unreasonable and that the statutory time limit for rendering a decision is directory rather than mandatory.

The applicants sought leave to bring an application for judicial review before a single judge of the Superior Court pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, arguing urgency.

The matter concerned the proposed designation of Apotex Inc.'s version of Lisinopril as a benefit under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

The respondent Minister opposed the application, arguing the urgency was self-created and economic loss was insufficient.

The court granted leave, finding the potential economic loss significant and the applicants' prior inaction not fatal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a college appeal committee's decision upholding his involuntary withdrawal from a nursing program.

He alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because one panel member, the college registrar, had previously reviewed his file and discussed his case with him.

A majority of the Divisional Court found that the prior undisclosed involvement did create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

However, the Court unanimously dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant had impliedly waived any objection by failing to raise the issue at the hearing despite being represented by counsel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission approving a reduced number of race days for two racetracks in 2007.

The applicant alleged a breach of procedural fairness and an error in denying it party status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, noting the applicant waited five months into the racing season to bring the application, which would cause substantial prejudice to the racetracks if the calendar were overturned.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission finding him liable for a strict liability drug offence involving a racehorse.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission failed to identify any evidence that the applicant's conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care.

The court noted that the Commission appeared to have improperly applied a standard of absolute liability rather than strict liability.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the salary level for laboratory technicians.

The hospital argued the arbitration board failed to consider the statutory requirements of s. 9(1.1) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the replication principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board explicitly stated it had considered the relevant factors and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of Del Frate J. regarding the contents of the record for an appeal from the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that based on the parties' agreement and Practice Direction 6, the 17-volume record filed by the Director constituted the evidence at the hearing and must be included in the Tribunal's record for the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The York Catholic District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision awarding Bernard Homes Ltd. and Crestvalley Homes Ltd. disturbance damages for lost builders' profits and solicitor-client costs following an expropriation.

The developers cross-appealed the OMB's dismissal of claims for lost developers' profits, reduction in land value, and lost executive time.

The Divisional Court allowed the School Board's appeal, setting aside the award for lost builders' profits and the solicitor-client costs order, finding that anticipated profits are not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The developers' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that health care aides dispatched to a hospital were not 'casual' employees under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had focused on 'the work' performed rather than the 'position', concluding the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its home statute was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant brought a motion to amend her application record in a judicial review proceeding by replacing previously filed affidavits with new ones.

The respondents opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that no authority permits a party to withdraw and replace an affidavit without consent.

The court directed the applicant to file the proposed affidavits in a sealed package with a notice of motion seeking leave to file further affidavits, leaving the determination of their admissibility to the panel hearing the judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Complaints Committee's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against a former associate.

The complaints related to a business dispute, alleged theft, and patient solicitation, rather than patient care or professional competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation adequate, the decision reasonable, and no evidence of bias on the part of the College or the Board.

The appellant appealed a two-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for serving an intoxicated customer.

The appellant argued there was no evidence to support the finding and that the Board's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusions and no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision declaring jurisdiction to proceed with a hearing regarding an amended Plan for the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area.

The applicants argued that an investigation and survey under s. 3(2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was a condition precedent to amending the Plan following a boundary alteration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the statutory requirement for an investigation and survey only applied when the Area was originally established, not for subsequent boundary amendments.

The applicant judges' association sought judicial review of the Ontario government's decision to reject the pension recommendations of the Fourth Triennial Remuneration Commission.

The government had retained independent actuaries to cost the recommendations before rejecting them.

The Divisional Court held that the actuarial affidavits were admissible, as the government was entitled to seek expert advice to justify its decision.

The court found that the government was not required to return to the Commission before making its decision, and that its rejection of the recommendations met the constitutional standard of simple rationality.