Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a WSIB decision approving a worker's third-party settlement retroactively, allowing the worker to claim 'top-up' benefits under s. 30(14) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer argued the statute strictly requires WSIB approval before a settlement is made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIB's interpretation reasonable.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and the mandatory/directory distinction, the court held that the pre-approval requirement is directory, and barring the worker from benefits due to timing would undermine the remedial purpose of the Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union, as well as a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The complaint arose after the union withdrew several of the applicant's grievances related to discipline he received for refusing to sign a training registration form due to privacy concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decisions were justified, intelligible, and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed without costs.

The appellant tenant appealed three eviction orders and a review order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent and committing illegal acts.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding he committed illegal acts because he was acquitted of the related criminal charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applies a different standard of proof and is permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict for illegal acts without a criminal conviction.

The court found no errors of law in the Board's assessment of the evidence, its refusal to grant relief from eviction, or its procedural fairness.

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing affordable housing, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a municipal tax exemption under s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The application judge found that the appellant was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' because it did not engage in 'some form of endeavour' to provide relief, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Religious Hospitallers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of binding precedent, though a concurring opinion suggested the Religious Hospitallers decision should be revisited.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave and judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision, the court determined costs.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,669.40.

The applicant argued for no costs, claiming the issue was novel and blaming the respondent for not agreeing to an adjournment.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, noting he chose the venue and his own costs outline exceeded the respondent's claim.

The court awarded the successful respondent costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which found that a real estate agent's past criminal conduct (assault and breach of a conditional sentence) did not meet the statutory threshold for revoking his registration, but warranted the imposition of conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal has jurisdiction under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 to impose conditions on a registrant even in the absence of a finding that the past conduct threshold for revocation was met.

The court also found that the tribunal's conclusion that the threshold was not met was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which suspended its liquor licence for 14 days after finding it allowed overcrowding and permitted a patron to smoke marijuana on the licensed patio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appeal lies only on a question of law, and the appellant's grounds were essentially challenges to the Board's findings of fact and credibility determinations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her claim for compensation as a victim of a violent crime.

The appellant sought compensation for nervous shock after learning that her daughter had been sexually assaulted by her husband years earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the common law test for nervous shock, which requires the claimant to have seen or heard the event or its immediate aftermath, rather than simply being informed of it later.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the LCBO from terminating its temporary authorization to operate an agency store and from fulfilling a new contract with a competitor, Daisy Mart, pending a judicial review of the procurement process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding fairness in the procurement process, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as any financial loss was compensable in damages.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the competitor, who had already undertaken substantial renovations and incurred expenses in reliance on the contract.

The moving party (the College) brought a motion to quash an appeal by the responding parties (the members) from an interlocutory order of the Discipline Committee.

The Discipline Committee had dismissed the members' motion for the production of additional third-party records.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the statutory right of appeal only applies to final decisions, not interlocutory ones.

The court also declined the members' request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, noting that such an application would be premature and that the administrative process should be permitted to unfold.

The Town of Collingwood sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed an appeal respecting the Education Development Charge By-laws of two school boards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Town failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, as the issues raised primarily involved questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board denying their request to consolidate and hold a single joint hearing regarding a proposed development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

On appeal, the respondent raised a new jurisdictional argument for the first time, asserting that certain regulations exempted the potential water hearings from consolidation.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter to a new panel of the OMB to consider the jurisdictional question with the benefit of a full factual context, and adjourned the appeal sine die.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Region's decision to consent to the sale of a non-profit housing co-operative to the Region's social housing arm.

The Co-op was in receivership due to financial difficulties and need for capital repairs.

The Region consented to the sale without notifying the Co-op's board or members.

The Divisional Court held that the Region's decision was judicially reviewable and that the Region breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

However, given the urgent need for repairs, the court declined to quash the consent and deferred the matter to the Commercial List where the sale motion was pending.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award ordering the pre-hearing production of a grievor's psychiatric records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The applicant argued that under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, only the Divisional Court could order such production.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation, finding that section 35(5) permits pre-hearing disclosure of mental health records pursuant to a summons or order without requiring a section 35(9) determination, which applies to the admission of evidence at a hearing.

However, the Court found the arbitrator's order was over-broad and amended it to limit the scope of records and require initial disclosure only to the arbitrator to assess relevance and privacy interests.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting his practice to surgical assisting for six months.

The restriction followed a peer review and a Physician Review Program (PREP) assessment.

The Divisional Court found that the College breached procedural fairness by failing to refer a second peer assessment to a Review Panel, providing selective information to the PREP director, and refusing to disclose the PREP test and video recordings to the applicant.

The decision imposing conditions on the applicant's certificate of registration was quashed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Licence Suspension Appeal Board decision that directed the refusal of their motor vehicle inspection licences.

They also brought a motion to adduce new evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for new evidence, finding it irrelevant and lacking an explanation for why it was not presented earlier.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that the applicants had failed to pursue their statutory right of appeal under the Highway Traffic Act and had not proceeded in a timely manner.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal licensing committee's decision to refuse the renewal of her body rub parlour licence due to by-law violations.

The applicant argued that the hearing lacked natural justice because the committee consisted solely of elected officials and relied on uncorroborated evidence from police and by-law officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory framework explicitly confided the decision to the municipality itself, the hearing was procedurally fair, and the committee's reliance on uncontradicted eyewitness evidence was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant employer association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its application for final offer selection to amend a collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the application and was required to choose one of the two final offers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the pragmatic and functional approach, the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review.

The court held it was not patently unreasonable for the arbitrator to conclude that the existence of a competitive disadvantage had to be verified before an offer could be selected, and that the arbitrator's factual findings were supported by evidence.

The moving party sought to set aside an order of a single judge refusing leave to appeal a substantial costs award made by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The moving party argued that the costs award penalized them for exercising their right to a hearing de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge did not decline jurisdiction or apply a wrong principle in refusing leave to appeal, but rather considered the argument on its merits and rejected it.