Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant, a Member of Provincial Parliament, sought judicial review of a censure decision by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following her social media posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The respondents moved to strike the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, holding that the censure and the motion leading to it fell squarely within the established categories of parliamentary privilege, specifically the control over debates and proceedings and the disciplinary authority over members.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, even on Charter grounds.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) upholding the dismissal of his complaints against seven police officers.

The complaints alleged police misconduct related to investigations of conflicts arising from a family law dispute, including recording an incorrect witness name, failing to meet disclosure obligations, and failing to enforce COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers acted in good faith and within their discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) moved for an order sealing part of the record in an underlying application for judicial review and preventing further dissemination of the documents.

The documents were found by an adjudicator to be covered by solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant and the affiant opposed the motion.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the criteria in Sherman Estate were met and that opening the documents to the public before the proceedings were decided would irreparably compromise the privilege and secrecy.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.

The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for an interim stay pending an application for judicial review.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of the motion.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, ordering that the interim interim stay remain in place until the motion is heard, the application is decided, or the parties consent to lift it.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions that dismissed his latest human rights application and denied his request for reconsideration.

The applicant alleged the decisions were unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and tainted by bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, the applicant was afforded procedural fairness despite his failure to seek leave as required, and there was no cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of impartiality of the adjudicators.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a municipal council decision reprimanding him and suspending his pay for 30 days due to his participation in the Freedom Convoy protest.

The applicant argued the council failed to consider his section 2 Charter rights when imposing the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the council was bound by the Integrity Commissioner's finding of misconduct, and any Charter arguments were relevant only to the Commissioner's finding, not the council's subsequent discretionary penalty decision.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The single judge had quashed the moving party's appeal from a pre-hearing decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, not final.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge applied the correct law and made no error in concluding that the Tribunal's decision regarding the use of criminal disclosure was not a final decision.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request to stay a decision of the Animal Care Review Board.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from the applicant's residence and issued a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the stay motion was moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment.

The panel also upheld the motion judge's finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

Cat Lake First Nation brought an urgent motion for an interim interim stay of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry's authorization allowing First Mining Gold Corporation to construct an 18 km winter road.

The First Nation argued the authorization was granted without adequate consultation and would irreparably harm their Aboriginal rights.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to constitutional rights, and that the balance of convenience favoured the First Nation.

The court granted the interim interim stay pending the full hearing of the motion and waived the requirement for an undertaking as to damages.

The applicants, a registered political party and its fund, sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision refusing to pay them three quarterly per-vote subsidies following the 2022 provincial election.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus compelling payment or, alternatively, a finding that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that the CEO had rendered a reviewable decision involving statutory interpretation, making mandamus unavailable.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court found the CEO's interpretation of the Election Finances Act—that the party was ineligible for the payments based on the 2021 amendments—was reasonable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program and receive a verbal caution after he posted sexually suggestive TikTok videos linked to his dental practice.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's conclusions regarding the breach of practice advisories and the risk to the public were justified and available on the record.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which held it was estopped from raising the issue of the current value of its office building for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to the current value assessment as of January 1, 2016, for the 2016-2020 cycle.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the provincial government extended the 2016 valuation date to apply to subsequent taxation years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the issue of the 2016 current value had been finally determined by the settlement and that the Board correctly applied the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a teacher, sought judicial review of the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers' decisions not to refer his complaints against three colleagues to the Discipline Committee.

The complaints related to a school play about bullying and violence that the applicant claimed triggered a traumatic response.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the decisions, as complainants in professional discipline cases generally only have standing for procedural fairness issues.

The court further held that the process was procedurally fair and the committee's decisions were reasonable.

Egale Canada brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning whether vaginoplasty without penectomy is an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that Egale has relevant expertise regarding the systemic disadvantages faced by trans and nonbinary individuals in accessing gender-affirming care and would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice or undue delay.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipality's decision to invoice him $9,445.44 for fire department response costs after he started an open-air fire on his property.

The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to a provincial offence for violating the burning by-law and was fined $250.

He argued the invoice decision lacked procedural fairness and was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the informal process provided was procedurally fair given the emergency context and statutory scheme, and that the decision to issue the invoice was reasonable and transparent.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the LTB proceeded with the hearing in their absence after they requested an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the LTB followed its own rules, as the tenants failed to provide evidence supporting their adjournment request prior to the hearing.

The court also upheld the LTB's refusal to admit a doctor's note as fresh evidence on reconsideration, noting it lacked sufficient detail.

The motion to quash was granted and an eviction date was set.

The applicant developers sought judicial review of two letters from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a dispute with an electricity distributor over whether a new substation was an 'expansion' or an 'enhancement'.

The OEB had provided an opinion that the project was an expansion, meaning the developers were responsible for the costs, and declined to refer the matter for a formal hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OEB's opinion was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and therefore not subject to judicial review.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had no statutory standing to compel the OEB to hold a hearing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions: a default decision finding it violated a collective agreement and awarding damages, and a decision denying reconsideration.

The employer had failed to participate in a related jurisdictional dispute or file a timely response to the grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable, as the employer had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to do so until the eve of the damages hearing.