Administrative Law - ODC

The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.

The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.

The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for substantial interference related to bed bugs in their rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board breached procedural fairness and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board afforded sufficient procedural fairness and properly controlled its own process.

Furthermore, the Court held that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, making reasonableness review inapplicable, and found no error in the Board's application of the law regarding the landlord's maintenance obligations.

The appellant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT Vice-Chair erred in law by providing inadequate, conclusory reasons and conflating the test for 'reasonable and necessary' expenses with procedural non-compliance.

The court set aside the LAT decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their discrimination application.

The underlying complaint alleged age and family status discrimination because the minor applicants were initially denied access to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot because the applicants received the requested vaccine prior to the hearing, and found no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's summary hearing process was procedurally fair and its conclusions on mootness and prospect of success were reasonable.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their registrations for breaching conditions and ungovernability.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside that order.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's application of the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed his requests to reactivate deferred human rights applications and denied reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to reactivate his applications within the 60-day time limit and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, as they were based on the applicant's failure to comply with procedural rules and a lack of medical evidence supporting his claim of disability-related delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by a coworker and subsequently terminated from his temporary assignment, claiming discrimination on various grounds.

The HRTO dismissed the application because the applicant failed to allege any nexus between a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and the alleged discriminatory conduct.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision reasonable and concluded there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the HRTO acted in accordance with its rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant real estate broker appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision suspending his registration for three months.

The suspension was based on false statements in registration applications and workplace misconduct.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the notice of proposal did not include the workplace misconduct allegations.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the LAT improperly relied on unparticularized evidence of workplace misconduct to support its finding that the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from two previous decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that upheld a zoning by-law amendment permitting a Supervised Consumption Facility.

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the amendment conformed to the 1989 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding the proposed appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, and the issue was not of sufficient general or public importance.

A case management teleconference was held to set a return date and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment.

The court scheduled a one-day ZOOM videoconference hearing for August 20, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic exchange of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box and hyperlinked factums.

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance concerning the employer's amendment to its photo identification policy.

The amendment discontinued the practice of allowing non-management employees to bring an occasional visitor on transit vehicles without paying a fare.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, as the plain wording did not require consideration of past practice.

The Court also found that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the employer's past practice did not give rise to an estoppel, as there was no representation by the employer that the practice would continue.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order quashing and permanently prohibiting a disciplinary proceeding against them before the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's administrative staff had inappropriately interfered in the scheduling process, demanded evidence for adjournments, and usurped the role of the Chair.

The Chair was found complicit in this conduct and interfered with the independence of a panel member who had ruled against the staff's request to be added as a party.

The court concluded that a reasonable apprehension of bias was established and permanently stayed the disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal confirming the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by applying a test of whether the Registrar was in error, rather than conducting a de novo hearing and making an independent determination as required by section 7(4) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Applying a correctness standard of review, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter for a rehearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her discrimination complaint against her former employer.

The Commission had exercised its discretion under section 34 of the Human Rights Code to dismiss the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the events giving rise to it, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the Commission's exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought judicial review of an order by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring it to disclose an electronic database containing the personal information of over 10 million Ontario residents to a collection agency.

The Commissioner had found that disclosure was expressly authorized by the Assessment Act, relying on previous case law regarding municipal election records.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Assessment Act did not expressly authorize disclosure of the electronic records and that the Commissioner failed to properly consider the differing statutory contexts and privacy interests.

The Court also held that MPAC was entitled to refuse disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the information was already available to the public in paper form.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) granting minor variances to the respondents to construct a new two-storey building.

The applicants argued the OMB erred in law by subsuming the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act into a single test of impact, failing to require a demonstrated need for the variances, misapprehending evidence regarding building length and height, and imposing an unenforceable condition on a rear balcony.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision on these questions of law and granted leave to appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.

The applicant moved for a stay pending the hearing of his application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the application was essentially an attempt to appeal on the facts, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and there was a four-month delay in bringing the application.