Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application.

The applicant had alleged that his termination during his probationary period was based on sex discrimination and reprisal.

The HRTO found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence connecting his termination to a protected ground.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision was logical and justified.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the city council to suspend her pay for 30 and 60 days, respectively, based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner finding she breached the code of conduct.

The first breach involved a social media post targeting residents who opposed her minor variance application, and the second involved conduct promoting homophobic and transphobic attitudes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Integrity Commissioner performs an investigative rather than adjudicative function, and that the council's decisions to accept the Commissioner's reports and impose the recommended sanctions were reasonable.

The court also denied the applicant's motion to amend her application to allege bias against the mayor.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

The developer and the municipality brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.

They argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the statutory appeal scheme and that the applicant lacked public interest standing.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was ousted or that standing should be denied.

The court also partially granted a motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit, striking two expert reports but allowing correspondence and video evidence to proceed to the panel.

The appellants, ten tenants of a mobile home park, appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions allowing the landlord's application to evict them to convert the property to non-residential use.

The tenants argued the LTB erred in law regarding the sufficiency of the N13 notices, the test for good faith, and the consideration of relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law, holding that the notices provided sufficient detail, the LTB correctly assessed the landlord's good faith intention to convert the land use, and the LTB adequately considered the tenants' circumstances before granting the eviction with a delayed enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant purchaser sought judicial review of an arbitrator's costs award that ordered him to pay the respondent vendor's legal fees on a substantial indemnity basis following a dismissed arbitration over a cancelled condominium project.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction because the arbitration was mandatory under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Court held the arbitrator's costs decision was unreasonable and internally inconsistent, as it failed to properly apply the specific costs regime in the Tarion Addendum which presumes the vendor pays the purchaser's reasonable legal expenses absent just cause.

The costs award was quashed and remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) dismissing his appeal regarding a freedom of information request.

The applicant had requested records from the school board relating to an independent investigator retained by the Integrity Commissioner to investigate a trustee.

The IPC found that the requested records were not in the custody or control of the school board and that the board had conducted a reasonable search.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the IPC's decision, finding no error in the IPC's application of the custody or control test and no denial of procedural fairness in the IPC's refusal to merge the applicant's appeals.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct arose from profane and abusive comments the applicant submitted to an anonymous virtual suggestion box intended for EDI initiatives.

The applicant argued the process was an abuse of process due to entrapment and that his comments were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Commission's application of the legal principles, including the test for privilege, as the comments fell outside the purpose of the suggestion box.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a rent abatement to the tenant.

The tenant's unit was rendered uninhabitable by a fire caused by a neighbour, but the tenant continued paying rent until the tenancy was terminated by consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination that the landlord breached its maintenance obligations under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act was a question of mixed fact and law, over which the court had no jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the court held the LTB's decision to award an abatement was correct in law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that calculated his partial loss of earnings benefits based on an ability to earn minimum wage.

The applicant argued he was entitled to full benefits because he did not complete his labour market re-entry plan, having voluntarily withdrawn to take a temporary job.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43(4) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision upholding their eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit late medical evidence regarding their disability at a second review hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board provided a high degree of procedural fairness by granting multiple adjournments and a second review hearing, and the Member properly exercised discretion in excluding the late evidence.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal succeeded, the tenant could not be restored to the unit as it had been lawfully re-rented to an arm's-length party.

The respondent physicians brought motions to strike out an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of her applications for judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The moving parties argued the affidavit contained impermissible evidence, argument, and matters outside the applicant's knowledge.

The court noted the general reluctance to determine evidentiary admissibility in advance of a judicial review hearing.

Given the mixed nature of the proposed evidence and uncertainty regarding its relevance to procedural fairness arguments, the court adjourned the motions to be decided by the panel hearing the applications.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for the landlord's mother's personal use.

The tenant argued that the absence of a hearing recording and the Board member's curtailment of cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the affidavit evidence provided an adequate record for review, the Board member reasonably limited irrelevant questioning, and the Board properly considered the tenant's circumstances under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The moving party sought an extension of time to review a motion judge's decision under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion judge had previously dismissed a motion to extend the time to seek judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision, finding no apparent merit to the application because the moving party lacked standing and the challenged program was protected under s. 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court panel agreed with the motion judge, finding no error in principle and a reasonable result, and dismissed the motion.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency to add internal confidential documents from a previously screened-out complaint to the record of proceeding for his current judicial review application.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that judicial review is not a de novo hearing and discovery is not available.

The court held that the administrative decision-maker is not required to produce all documents in its possession that were not put before or considered by the decision-maker in the specific case under review.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated November 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to joint submissions, the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when he claimed to have a medical appointment in the U.S., and by relying on allegedly false evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the medical note lacked sufficient detail to justify an adjournment and there was no evidence the landlord's affirmed testimony was untrue.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence.

The applicant First Nations sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to amend a Crown Land Use Policy Atlas and transfer a parcel of Crown land to the Municipality of Red Lake for housing development.

The applicants argued the Ministry breached its duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and failed to obtain their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Treaty No. 3 allows the Crown to take up land subject to a duty to consult, which does not amount to a First Nation veto.

The court held that the duty to consult was at the lower end of the spectrum and that the Ministry's consultation process was reasonable and fulfilled its constitutional obligations.

The applicant sought costs against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after successfully bringing an application for judicial review.

The Tribunal had erroneously dismissed her human rights application for failing to comply with case assessment directions, despite her having filed the required documents.

The Tribunal consented to the judicial review but opposed the request for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for costs, finding that the Tribunal's error was made in the course of its administrative functions and that it did not assume an adversarial role in the proceedings.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his complaint that the Toronto Police Association breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been terminated following a refusal to sign a last chance agreement related to his alcohol use disorder.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision reasonable, noting the Association had supported the applicant for four years and reasonably concluded the employer's settlement offer was appropriate.

The court also dismissed allegations of bias and human rights violations.