Administrative Law - ODC

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 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 applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the City of Toronto from raising the flag of the State of Palestine at City Hall.

The applicants argued the approval was ultra vires, breached the City's Flag Policy, and violated the duty of neutrality.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, as the City's decision was reasonable and within its authority.

The court also found the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

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 moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, filed almost two years after the deadline.

The ICRC had required the moving party to complete a remediation program and attend for a caution regarding medication errors and inappropriate access to patient charts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed application lacked apparent grounds for relief given the reasonableness standard of review, and that the moving party failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the lengthy delay.

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, whose licence to practice law was revoked in 2012 for ungovernability, sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision affirming the denial of his re-licensing application.

The Hearing Division had found the applicant was not of good character due to his failure to disclose outstanding civil judgments, criminal convictions, and prior discipline, as well as a lack of remorse and rehabilitative efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision reasonable and concluding there was no procedural unfairness in the tribunal proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Ministries disqualifying its bid for a government debt collection contract.

The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation stage for failing to demonstrate it was currently registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procurement dispute was commercial in nature and not subject to judicial review.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Ministries' decision to disqualify the bid based on an expired registration certificate was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

The applicant brought motions for further production of documents and to strike an affidavit in the context of his applications for judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decisions to close his complaints against two lawyers.

The court dismissed the motion for production, finding that the decision to close a complaint is not the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and that internal memoranda are protected by deliberative privilege.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike the affidavit of the Intake and Resolution Counsel, finding it properly detailed the process followed.

The applicant physician moved for an urgent interim injunction to stay the revocation of his hospital privileges pending judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the statutory provisions relied upon applied to reappointment rather than mid-term revocation.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent hospital.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The appellant opposed the motion, while the respondent consented.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT could make a useful and distinct contribution on the statutory and procedural context and procedural fairness.

However, the court restricted the LAT from making submissions on the standard of review or reasonable apprehension of bias to avoid the tribunal defending its own decision.

The applicant, an internationally trained dentist, sought judicial review of two decisions by the National Dental Examining Board of Canada (NDEB) that resulted in her failing the Assessment of Clinical Skills for the third time.

She challenged the denial of both a compassionate appeal and a regular appeal.

The Divisional Court held that the Executive Committee breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for denying the compassionate appeal, specifically regarding the applicant's mental and emotional state during the exam.

The compassionate appeal decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

However, the court dismissed the judicial review of the regular appeal, finding the Appeals Panel's decision was reasonable, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which had overturned a Hearing Panel's finding that he did not commit fraud in certain real estate transactions.

The appellant argued the Appeal Panel failed to respect the Hearing Panel's credibility finding that he had an honest but mistaken belief that the lenders knew the actual structure of the transactions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Appeal Panel that the Hearing Panel's credibility findings were tainted by its flawed legal analysis of fraud, and upholding the referral to a new Hearing Panel.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which awarded compensation to a worker injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving home after responding to an emergency call outside normal working hours.

The Appeals Tribunal applied the Board's Travelling Policy, finding the worker was in the course of his employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Appeals Tribunal's decision was reasonable, within its jurisdiction, and properly applied the mandatory Board policy.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a hospital board's motion decision regarding the termination of his hospital privileges due to disruptive conduct.

The applicant argued that the Medical Advisory Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its recommendation, that a board member's comments breached the Public Hospitals Act, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant must first exhaust his statutory remedies, including an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, before seeking judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay the Ministry of Transportation for a fire department invoice arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias because the deputy judge was a former mayor of a neighbouring municipality and an associate at his law firm was a volunteer firefighter for the responding fire department.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's factual findings that the fire department provided a compensable service.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assigning the teaching of the Life and Learning Skills program for students aged 14 and older in secondary schools to members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The applicant argued the work should belong to elementary teachers because the academic content was at the primary level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB correctly interpreted the Education Act by considering the physical location, educational purpose, and body of pupils, and reasonably applied labour relations principles to conclude the work belonged to secondary school teachers.

The applicant hospital appealed an arbitrator's preliminary order granting the respondent union an extension of time to proceed to arbitration for a discharge grievance.

The union had missed the 21-day deadline by four days.

The Divisional Court reviewed whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time limit.

The Court held that because the collective agreement specifically included the referral to arbitration as Step 3 of the grievance procedure, the arbitrator correctly concluded she had jurisdiction to extend the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss or adjourn a motion brought by the respondent Ontario Human Rights Commission, which was scheduled to be heard by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to comply with a production order and a previous costs order.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding costs order but dismissed the motion to dismiss or adjourn, finding that the applicant's arguments regarding the timing of the respondent's motion should be made to the panel hearing that motion.