Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant, a former employee of the Toronto District School Board, sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant's initial human rights application regarding their termination had been dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay and that there were no apparent grounds for relief, as the underlying issues had already been addressed through the labour grievance process.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review and sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

After the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the judicial review application appeared to raise the same issues.

The court found the application was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided and did not raise any factual errors outside the scope of the statutory appeal mechanism.

The application for judicial review was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The applicant sought judicial review of an oral caution imposed by the College of Pharmacists Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee for overbilling at five pharmacies.

The applicant argued the caution was punitive rather than remedial, given his prior discipline for similar conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable because the current conduct involved significantly more money, more pharmacies, and a different time period, thereby posing a greater risk to the public and demonstrating a need for further remediation.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario denying him access to his son's personal health information held by a family services agency.

The applicant argued he was entitled to the records under the Divorce Act and various privacy statutes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decisions to be reasonable.

The court upheld the adjudicator's findings that the Divorce Act did not mandate disclosure and that the agency properly exercised its discretion in considering the best interests of the child and the applicant's motives.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Labour Relations Board requiring the provision of properly trained security personnel in a forensic psychiatric unit.

The respondents argued that reviewing the interim order before the Board had completed its proceedings would be an inappropriate, fragmented approach.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the application premature as the Board's proceedings were still ongoing and the impugned order was only one aspect of a broader safety regime being considered.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent unions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) dismissing his privacy complaint against the Peel Regional Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the IPC's refusal to investigate a privacy complaint is a legislative function protected by parliamentary privilege.

Alternatively, the Court held that the IPC reasonably concluded the police disclosure to the Children's Aid Society was justified under the duty to report a child in need of protection pursuant to section 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

East Durham Wind, LP moved to be added as a party or intervener in an application for judicial review concerning a Renewable Energy Approval for its wind project.

The applicant opposed the motion, while the respondent Ministry consented.

The court granted East Durham Wind party intervener status under Rule 13.01, finding it had a direct economic interest and could make a useful contribution.

The court also granted the moving party's request to conditionally transfer the proceeding from Brampton to Toronto to facilitate an expedited hearing before the scheduled start of project construction.

The applicants sought to subdivide land and appealed draft conditions to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing Charter violations.

The City successfully moved to strike the Charter issues.

Nine months later, the applicants sought reconsideration, which the Board refused.

A single judge of the Divisional Court denied leave to appeal that refusal.

The applicants then moved before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the single judge's decision.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding the single judge did not decline jurisdiction and reasonably concluded the Board's emphasis on finality and procedural rules was appropriate.

The applicants sought to extend a stay of a 12-month license suspension imposed by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission pending a judicial review.

The respondent argued the judicial review was premature as the applicants had not exhausted their right of appeal to the Commission.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the lack of reasons for the suspension, irreparable harm to the applicant's racing operation, and the balance of convenience favouring the applicant.

The motion was granted and the stay was extended to allow the judicial review to be heard alongside a related application.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that the collective agreement did not require the respondent City to pay the Ontario Health Premium for its full-time employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, following recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence on similar grievances.

The Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement language, concluding that the parties did not intend the employer to pay the income tax-based premium, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant moved for a stay of an order revoking its liquor licence pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Board had revoked the licence after finding that drug dealing was openly conducted on the premises with the owner's knowledge.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the appeal lacked bona fides, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in removing the licence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the school board's decision to exclude a student from a regular class and require an assessment prior to determining placement.

The board offered a special education placement pending the assessment, which the litigation guardian refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's position was not unreasonable, and declined to order the deletion of the student's records.

The applicant teacher was acquitted of criminal charges relating to alleged sexual misconduct with a former student in 1991.

The Ontario College of Teachers subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against him under 1997 regulations.

The discipline committee refused the applicant's request for an adjournment, proceeded in his absence, admitted the criminal trial transcript and judge's obiter findings without adequate reasons, and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the committee breached natural justice by arbitrarily refusing the adjournment and failing to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Court also held that applying the 1997 regulations to 1991 conduct offended the rule against retrospective application of legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the Complaints Committee's dismissal of his complaints against three physicians.

The applicant disagreed with the physicians' medical opinions that his spinal condition was congenital rather than work-related.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent physicians.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had to determine the meaning of 'without prejudice' in a prior arbitration decision and whether the current case was essentially the same as the prior one.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and found the arbitrator correctly applied labour arbitration principles rather than strict common law concepts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by an Arbitrator and the Director's Delegate, which found he was not injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule 1996.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, was struck on the head with a rock by an assailant while in his cab.

The Arbitrator found his injuries were caused solely by the assault and not by striking any part of the vehicle, thus failing the causation test for an 'accident'.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found the Tribunal's decisions were not only reasonable but correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a professional horse trainer, sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission after one of his horses tested positive for a Class III drug.

The applicant argued that the Commission denied him procedural fairness by refusing to disclose past penalty rulings, that the panel's rejection of a joint settlement proposal created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the imposed penalty of a 10-month suspension and $50,000 fine was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias as the panel maintained an open mind, and that the penalty was reasonable given the applicant's prior disciplinary record.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the assessed value of its two senior citizen apartment buildings.

The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on actual rents that included fees for non-realty services rather than fair market rents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board made no error of law and that the appellant failed to discharge its onus under section 60(1) of the Assessment Act to prove the assessment was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) which changed the property tax class of five suite hotels from 'hotel' to 'residential/farm' and 'multi-residential'.

The ARB had concluded that the suite hotels did not meet the definition of a hotel under the Hotel Registration of Guests Act.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision because it failed to make findings on the evidence or provide an analysis of why a suite hotel is not included in the definition.

The court also found the issue to be of sufficient importance as it would impact numerous other suite hotels in Ontario.