Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a subsequent reconsideration decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to poor interpretation services at the hearing and because the same tribunal member conducted the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, as the tribunal adequately addressed the interpreter concerns and established jurisprudence permits the same adjudicator to conduct a reconsideration.

The court also found the tribunal's factual findings regarding the appellant's ability to work were reasonable.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to maintain the standard of practice by treating cancer patients with unproven complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, failing to obtain informed consent, and improperly billing OHIP for palliative care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding her complaints of police misconduct.

The applicant had filed an initial complaint about an officer's conduct, and later added a second complaint alleging unlawful arrest.

The OIPRD investigated and dismissed the first complaint but inadvertently failed to screen or investigate the second complaint.

The Divisional Court held that the failure to investigate the second complaint was unreasonable and ordered it remitted to the OIPRD for investigation by a different investigator.

However, the court found the OIPRD's decision dismissing the initial complaint was reasonable and upheld that portion of the decision.

The applicant, a person with disabilities, had used specialized transit services unconditionally for 8 years.

The respondent reviewed his eligibility and changed it to conditional, requiring him to use conventional transit for part of his trip accompanied by a personal care assistant at his own expense.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court found the decision unreasonable as it erected a barrier rather than removing one, contrary to the purpose of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The decision was quashed and the applicant's unconditional eligibility was restored.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatrist's report prepared after the Director's decision, which corroborated the appellant's physical and mental conditions.

The matter was remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal affirming the termination of his ODSP benefits.

His benefits were terminated because he was absent from Ontario for more than 30 days after travelling to Mexico and missing his return flight due to illness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and noting the appellant conceded he was ineligible for ODSP benefits during the relevant period because he was receiving OSAP.

Three mothers sought judicial review of decisions made by the Motherisk Commission regarding their child protection cases.

The court first ruled that the mandatory publication ban under s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act prevented the media from publishing the mothers' names, even with their consent.

The court then dismissed one application as moot because the applicant had already received a favourable ruling from the Commissioner.

The remaining two applications were dismissed as premature because the applicants had not yet exhausted the internal reconsideration processes available before the Commission.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, brought a motion to vary an order that quashed his affidavit filed in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion in part, finding that the motions judge erred in striking portions of the affidavit that went to an essential finding of fact regarding anti-union animus and alleged denials of procedural fairness.

The court reinstated specific paragraphs of the affidavit while upholding the exclusion of the remainder.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a Direction to Exclude issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The applicant argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made an unreasonable decision based on inadmissible evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had previously agreed to the rescission of an earlier direction and to proceed by written submissions.

The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's decision was reasonable given that the core allegations were undisputed.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his appointment as a bailiff for allegedly participating in unlawful entries.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the first incident was unreasonable because the evidence established the client had a right to occupy the premises.

The Court further held it was administratively unfair to rely on a second, much older incident as an independent basis for revocation due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Appeals Management Tribunal of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which had dismissed his motion to extend the time to appeal a finding of professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that appeals from the Appeals Management Tribunal must first go to the Appeal Panel of the Law Society, and only subsequent appeals from the Appeal Panel lie to the Divisional Court under section 49.38 of the Law Society Act.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for insubordination after conducting CPIC searches on his wife's vehicle at her request.

The Toronto Police Service cross-appealed the Commission's decision to reduce the officer's penalty from a seven-day to a three-day forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the CPIC searches were not exclusively for police business and that the Hearing Officer implicitly rejected the officer's defence of honest belief.

The Court also upheld the Commission's interpretation of the Police Services Act, confirming that prior informal discipline must be expunged after two years and cannot be considered in sentencing unless a new finding of misconduct is proven within that period.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, which included a twenty-year ban from trading in securities by the Ontario Securities Commission for grave violations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as it was entitled to rely on the Agreed Statement of Facts from the OSC proceedings and conclude that the appellant evaded responsibility for his past actions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that allowed the respondent to convert a 161-unit affordable rental apartment building into a condominium.

The municipality argued the Board erred in its application of the Planning Act and disregarded provincial and municipal policies protecting rental housing.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision for failing to consider the specific city-wide housing policies and condominium conversion policies in the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 and the municipality's Official Plan.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, which prohibited him from having a proprietary interest in a pharmacy or working at a family member's pharmacy for three years.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to 19 counts of misconduct related to fraudulent billing and falsifying records.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was justified for public protection given the sustained level of dishonesty and ongoing attempts to conceal it.

The applicants sought to quash the Minister's decision to close the Land Registry Office in Welland, a designated area under the French Language Services Act, and relocate its services to St. Catharines.

They argued the decision violated the Act and the constitutional principle of respect for and protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Act requires the provision of services to a designated area but does not prohibit relocating the office outside the area, provided the services remain available.

The court also dismissed as premature a related application by a seniors' residence seeking to administer its own waiting list for subsidized housing to preserve its francophone character.

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 revoking his license.

The appellant had provided expensive, unproven alternative treatments to vulnerable, terminally ill cancer patients, misrepresenting the efficacy of the treatments and charging excessive fees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's findings on credibility, misrepresentation, conflict of interest, and excessive fees.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it appropriate given the appellant's exploitation of vulnerable patients.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that denied it party status in a site plan appeal.

The moving party argued it was denied natural justice and that the Board applied the wrong test for standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the site plan process does not determine the rights of neighbouring property owners, and thus there was no denial of natural justice.

The Court also held that the Board properly exercised its discretion over its own procedure in determining that the municipality could adequately protect the public interest.

The applicant First Nation brought a motion to stay proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board pending judicial review.

The applicant challenged the Board's jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions regarding the applicability of labour laws to aboriginal persons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the Board lacked jurisdiction, as the Board has the concomitant jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions arising from its power to determine questions of law.

The Court also reiterated its practice of refusing to fragment administrative proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.