Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant, a firefighter who responded to the 2018 Toronto van attack, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments resulting from witnessing the aftermath.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the rental van was used as a weapon and the firetruck did not directly cause the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator made no error of law in applying the purpose and causation tests, and rejected the appellant's Charter argument regarding discrimination against mental injuries.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $1,130.00.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing in her absence after she sent a letter advising of a doctor's appointment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to follow the Board's procedures for requesting an adjournment and the Board properly exercised its discretion to proceed under the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision revoking his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance.

The housing provider terminated the subsidy after discovering the applicant was subject to bail conditions requiring him to reside with a surety and prohibiting contact with his children, meaning he had been absent from the unit for over 60 days and failed to report a change in household composition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the administrative decision was reasonable, properly interpreted the legislative scheme, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers refusing to remove a 2014 finding of professional misconduct and reprimand from the public register.

The applicants argued that because the remedial course condition had been fulfilled, only the reprimand remained, entitling the teacher to its removal after three years under the College's by-laws.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the initial penalty imposed included both a reprimand and a course, meaning it was not 'limited to a reprimand' as required by the by-law for automatic removal.

The appellant car wash business appealed an Ontario Municipal Board order requiring it to pay $86,943.20 in costs to the respondent municipality after its claim for injurious affection was dismissed.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and the Board placed undue reliance on the respondent's $15,000 settlement offer.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under the Expropriations Act to award costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct in refusing the offer and proceeding with a meritless claim.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, which issued a caution regarding their public communications but did not refer the matter to discipline.

The applicants argued the ICRC exceeded its jurisdiction, exhibited bias, denied procedural fairness, and infringed their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the ICRC acted reasonably, did not make improper findings of fact or misconduct, and appropriately balanced Charter values.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board affirming a Committee of Adjustment's authorization of minor variances for a neighbouring commercial property.

The applicant argued the Board member erred in law by failing to properly address the tests for a 'minor' variance, 'desirability', and 'impact' under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and that the reasons were insufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no errors of law, that the Board member's reasons were adequate, and that the matter did not raise an issue of general importance warranting the court's attention.

The Equal Pay Coalition brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a judicial review of a decision by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The underlying application concerned whether the employer failed to maintain compensation practices providing for pay equity.

The employer opposed the intervention, arguing the Coalition would not make a useful contribution and would duplicate the union's submissions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the Coalition could bring a broader perspective and constructive contribution to the issues, particularly regarding international conventions and the relationship between the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code.

The intervention was granted subject to strict limits on the Coalition's participation.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.

The Ontario Nurses Association brought a motion to review and set aside a decision of Molloy J., which struck out an affidavit containing correspondence between an arbitration chair and the employer's nominee.

The underlying judicial review application by the Board of Health alleged a denial of natural justice because the arbitration board did not discuss the evidence before the chair issued a proposed decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with Molloy J. that the correspondence was unnecessary to introduce as evidence because the facts it sought to establish were already addressed in the chair's reasons and were not disputed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the revocation of their registration as a private career college.

The appellants argued that the adjudicator's comments and questions during the 25-day hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator's interventions, including accusing the self-represented appellant of misleading the tribunal and improperly questioning him about ties to a terrorist organization, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

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

Deloitte & Touche LLP appealed an order of the Ontario Securities Commission authorizing the disclosure of written answers provided by Deloitte during an investigation to the respondents in a related enforcement proceeding.

Deloitte argued the information was not relevant, that disclosure was not in the public interest, and that the information was privileged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the information was relevant to the respondents' ability to make full answer and defence, that the public interest favoured disclosure, and that the information was not privileged because it did not originate in confidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to a trailer park site rented by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to exhaust their internal remedies, including a statutory right of appeal on a question of law and a right to request a review by the Tribunal.

The Court also found no error of law on the face of the record, as the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the Act applied.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding a doctor $81,850 for injurious affection caused by subway construction near his leased offices.

The doctor cross-appealed the quantum of damages, arguing the Board erred in reducing damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle in the Board's assessment of reasonableness or damages.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Board of Directors of the respondent denying its reaccreditation as a member agency.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was correctness.

The court found that the respondent followed its own procedures fairly, and there was ample evidence to support the denial of reaccreditation due to the appellant's non-compliance with accreditation standards.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetency.

The appellant argued that the Committee's refusal to grant him an adjournment due to his medical unfitness to instruct counsel or participate in the hearing constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the uncontradicted medical evidence established the appellant's inability to proceed, and that the Committee's refusal to adjourn the hearing was a denial of natural justice.

The Committee's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The appellant appealed a Board decision that found it had no jurisdiction to hear a claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board correctly found the land was voluntarily dedicated rather than expropriated under s. 1(1)(a), it erred in concluding that s. 1(1)(b) required a taking of land.

Section 1(1)(b) contemplates an action for injurious affection where no expropriation has occurred.

The Court also found the Board erred in its interpretation of the limitation period under s. 22(1), holding that time runs from the completion of construction when actual damage is discovered, not from a pre-construction opinion.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a full hearing.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the disclosure of records of the Physician Services Committee.

The Minister argued the records were exempt under the 'labour relations' provision in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner that 'labour relations' refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees.

Since members of the Ontario Medical Association are not employees of the Ministry, the exemption did not apply.