Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The arbitrator found that the respondent nursing home breached the collective agreement by hiring non-unionized agency workers but declined to order any remedy beyond a declaration, citing the home's severe staffing shortages and regulatory obligations.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The court noted that while the situation was problematic, the arbitrator reasonably concluded that other remedies would exacerbate the staffing crisis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's decision declining to reactivate her application after a workplace grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal found she failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay in requesting reactivation, as her medical evidence did not establish she was prevented from pursuing her legal rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, its assessment of the medical evidence entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant initially sought an order of mandamus compelling the respondent Minister to make public proposed accessibility standards reports.

After the reports were released, the applicant amended the application to seek a declaration that the respondent breached his statutory duty under s. 10(1) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 by failing to release them upon receipt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as moot, noting the live controversy had disappeared.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding that the required analysis of what constitutes reasonable steps prior to release is highly contextual and would not provide meaningful guidance for future cases.

The Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission directing the Chief of Police to withdraw disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The Commission found that the Chief failed to comply with the mandatory investigation and reporting requirements under section 76 of the Police Services Act before initiating a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that deferred his request to state a case for contempt against the respondent school board.

The applicant alleged the school board failed to comply with an interim accommodation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature as the HRTO proceeding had not concluded.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and held that the HRTO's decision to defer the contempt issue to the merits hearing was reasonable.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) appealed a decision of its Discipline Panel that dismissed four allegations of professional misconduct against an engineer and his firm regarding their environmental assessment and remediation of an oil spill.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel committed several errors of law, including applying a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities, failing to treat practising without a Certificate of Authorization as a strict liability offence, improperly drawing an adverse inference, and applying the tort concepts of harm and causation to the regulatory definition of negligence.

The court set aside the Panel's decision and remitted the matter to be reheard by a differently constituted panel.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario regulation that discontinued the reimbursement of out-of-country medical expenses under the provincial health insurance plan.

The Divisional Court found that the regulation clearly violated the portability criterion of the Canada Health Act, which would disqualify Ontario from receiving a full federal cash contribution.

Because the Health Insurance Act explicitly prohibits the Lieutenant Governor in Council from making regulations that would cause such disqualification, the impugned regulation was declared ultra vires.

The applicants' Charter challenges under sections 7 and 15 were dismissed.

The Ministry of Health applied for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination in setting compensation for midwives.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry had abandoned historical compensation principles that aligned midwives with community health centre physicians, leading to an inequitable compensation gap.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings of adverse treatment and the connection to sex were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's remedial orders, which included a 20% retroactive compensation increase and $7,500 per eligible midwife for injury to dignity.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's penalty requiring her to resign or face termination.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting 15 fraudulent massage therapy benefits claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OCPC reasonably applied the standard of review, properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's weighing of the Krug factors and usefulness test, and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The moving party school board brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the responding party union's application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought review of arbitration awards concerning a wrongful dismissal grievance.

The single judge held that unless the determination of a motion to dismiss for delay is so clear as to leave no doubt, it should be decided by the full panel hearing the application.

Finding the issues were not clear enough for a single judge to determine, the court adjourned the motion to the full panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination complaint against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The HRTO had dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of her complaint regarding social assistance eligibility and shelter allowance had already been appropriately dealt with by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was reasonable and that the applicant's benefits were assessed based on her own application and a reasonable interpretation of the regulations, not discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal confirming the director's issuance of renewable energy approvals for two wind turbine projects.

They argued that section 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a two-step process shifting the onus to the approval-holder, that the tribunal erred in rejecting the material contribution test for causation, and that they were denied procedural fairness when an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statute imposes a single onus on the appellants to prove harm, the material contribution test was properly rejected, and the tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The revocation followed the discovery of counterfeit DVDs and unmarked cigarettes at his convenience store, and his subsequent disregard for an immediate suspension order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tribunal's reasons were adequate and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the appellant's pattern of dishonesty and lack of respect for the law.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision to refuse to process its application for a new liquor licence.

The Registrar had refused to process the application, arguing the applicant was substantially related to the existing licensee and was attempting to evade public interest protections, and insisted the applicant file a transfer application instead.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that under the Liquor Licence Act, the Registrar has no statutory authority to refuse an application outright.

Instead, the Registrar must issue a proposal to refuse the application, which triggers the applicant's right to a hearing.

The matter was remitted to the Registrar to process in accordance with the Act.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a discipline panel's decision regarding a nurse who was found guilty of professional misconduct following criminal convictions for child pornography offences.

The nurse had resigned prior to the hearing, and the panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to revoke his certificate of registration because it was 'non-existent'.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the panel's interpretation unreasonable and contrary to the broad, purposive intent of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Court held that the College retains continuing jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including revocation, on former members to protect the public.

The Court set aside the panel's penalty and ordered the revocation of the respondent's certificate.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP, which reduced his stale-dated billing claims from $572,462.41 to $203,864.07 following a sample audit.

The applicant argued the General Manager lacked jurisdiction to reduce the claims under the amended Health Insurance Act, acted unreasonably, and breached procedural fairness by refusing a meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the General Manager had discretion under s. 18(3) to set conditions for reviewing late claims, the sample audit methodology was reasonable, and procedural fairness was met without an in-person meeting.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its rail yard.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law by failing to find a nearby rail yard was a comparable property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test and made no overriding or palpable factual error in concluding the two rail yards were not comparable due to significant differences in size, building area, and daily train traffic.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to Future Economic Loss (FEL) and Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefits.

The applicant suffered a workplace back injury and later a non-work-related motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not totally disabled prior to the motor vehicle accident and upheld the 18% NEL award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and fell within its specialized expertise.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding that it breached s. 45(1) of the Liquor Licence Act by permitting drunkenness on its premises, and imposing a 10-day licence suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 45(1) applies to anyone on the premises, not just patrons, and that due diligence is not an available defence in this regulatory context.

The majority found the Board's factual findings and the penalty reasonable.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the Board failed to properly analyze whether the licensee 'permitted' the drunkenness.

The appellant landlord appealed a Tribunal decision finding bad faith in an eviction for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's finding of bad faith and calculation of damages were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and therefore not reviewable.

The Court also found that the absence of transcripts did not prejudice the appellant, distinguishing the case from precedent as there were no allegations of bias or procedural unfairness.