Administrative Law - ODC

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying motor vehicle accident benefits.

The moving party had previously discontinued an application for judicial review due to adverse case law that was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief, as the causation issue had already been decided on appeal and the allegations of institutional bias lacked specifics.

The court also noted the lengthy delay and the principle of finality weighed against granting the extension.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator erred in law by failing to reference a Functional Capacity Evaluation, ignoring subjective evidence, demonstrating bias, and misapplying the test for suitable alternative employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator's failure to mention specific evidence did not constitute an error of law, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the adjudicator's factual findings supported the conclusion regardless of the specific employment factors considered.

The appellant architect appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the OAA Discipline Committee.

The Committee found the architect in a conflict of interest under s. 43(1)(f) of the Regulation because he provided millwork drawings for a renovation project while also owning a company that submitted a quote for the work.

The appellant argued the provision only applied to formal tendering processes creating a Contract A/Contract B scenario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee correctly interpreted 'tenders or bids' to include informal competitive bidding processes, consistent with the plain meaning of the words and the public interest purpose of the legislation.

The tenant, who suffers from mental illness, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to accommodate the tenant's disability by refusing to grant a second adjournment, which prevented her from fully and fairly participating in the process.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The appellant nurse appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for failing to comply with an order to complete a remediation program.

She argued she was denied natural justice because she could not challenge the underlying allegations.

The College cross-appealed, arguing the conduct should have been found 'dishonourable' and a longer suspension imposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that the appellant could not collaterally attack the underlying order, and that the Discipline Committee's findings on misconduct and the two-month suspension were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissing his appeal of a police discipline hearing outcome.

The Commission had ruled the appeal was filed out of time because, although faxed and received on the final day of the 30-day limit, a statutory deeming provision deemed faxed documents received the following day.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the deeming provision created a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute one.

The provision is intended to protect the serving party, not to act as a trap to deprive them of a statutory right of appeal when actual receipt within the time limit is established.

The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision that found he was involved in an activity reasonably incidental to his employment when injured in a motor vehicle accident during a lunch break at a remote work location.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to an inconsistent statement in the reasons and findings of fact allegedly lacking evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite one inconsistent statement, the decision as a whole showed a clear line of reasoning, was supported by evidence, and fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Toronto Police Services Board's decision refusing to purge a 'person of interest' record from his Police Vulnerable Sector Check regarding an unproven 2000 allegation.

On this motion, the applicant sought an order allowing him to proceed anonymously using initials and redacting identifying information from the record.

The court granted the request to use initials and redact his identifying information, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if his name was disclosed, and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting his privacy to allow the judicial review to proceed.

The request to redact information about his relatives was denied.

The applicant, a paralegal candidate, sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that quashed his motion challenging the constitutional validity of By-law 4 during his good character hearing.

The Hearing Panel had concluded it lacked institutional competence to conduct broad constitutional inquiries into the governance of the Society.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, agreeing that the Hearing Panel correctly held it had no jurisdiction to deal with the broad issue of the by-law's validity, and that such questions are appropriately raised before a court of original jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved a zoning by-law amendment permitting a 12-storey condominium development on a dynamic beach.

The moving party argued the development site fell within the Dynamic Beach Hazard, where development is prohibited.

The OMB accepted expert engineering evidence from the respondents that proposed shoreline protection works would adequately protect the site and mark the landward limit of the hazard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's preference for one expert's opinion over others was a finding of fact, not an error of law, and therefore did not meet the test for leave to appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that adjourned his unfair representation complaints against the faculty association pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and unreasonableness in the Board's decision to grant the adjournment and extend time for the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's discretionary decision to adjourn the premature complaints was reasonable.

The Court also noted the application was premature as the Board had not yet determined the merits of the complaints.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application to evict a tenant for the landlord's own use.

Although the Board found the application was made in good faith, it refused the eviction under s. 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, finding that eviction would be more unfair to the vulnerable tenant than denying the landlord's application.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and held that the Board did not err in principle by weighing the overall circumstances and unfairness to both parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The corporate applicant sought a stay of a 14-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission pending its appeal.

The respondent conceded irreparable harm and balance of convenience but argued the appeal did not raise a serious issue as it only disputed findings of fact.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, noting the applicant intended to introduce fresh evidence and argue the Board failed to consider relevant evidence.

The stay was granted.

The applicant, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, sought a stay of a coroner's inquest into the death of an aboriginal youth pending an application for judicial review.

The judicial review challenged the Coroner's refusal to issue a summons to a government official regarding the representativeness of First Nations people on the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the representativeness of the jury roll raised a serious issue, that proceeding with a potentially unrepresentative jury could cause irreparable harm to public confidence, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant utility appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that allocated 100% of the net after-tax gains from the sale of three properties to reduce the utility's revenue requirement, thereby lowering electricity rates.

The appellant argued the OEB exceeded its jurisdiction and improperly granted ratepayers a property interest in the utility's assets.

The Divisional Court held that the OEB's decision fell squarely within its rate-setting authority and expertise.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Court found the OEB's allocation of the gains as a revenue offset was a reasonable exercise of its mandate to balance competing interests and set just and reasonable rates.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to classify the Bloor Street Transformation Project as a Schedule A/A+ project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, which exempted it from a full environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and found the City's classification of the road and sidewalk reconstruction project to be reasonable.

The court also held that, in any event, the discretionary remedy of judicial review would be refused due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application, as construction had already begun and halting the project would prejudice the public interest.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding that he was guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The charges arose after the appellant arrested an individual for public intoxication and failing to identify himself, resulting in an altercation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence, despite deficiencies in the Hearing Officer's reasons regarding credibility findings.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) upholding a finding of misconduct for corrupt practice and the resulting penalty of demotion.

The officer had released an arrested individual without charge and subsequently accepted hockey tickets from him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OCCPS reasonably concluded the officer's actions constituted corrupt practice, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias by the hearing officer, and the penalty was not disproportionate.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which found a breach of s. 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 for permitting drunkenness and suspended its licence for seven days.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by reserving its decision on a motion for non-suit and requiring the licensee to call evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was not required to entertain non-suit motions allegation by allegation without a complete election.

The court also held that a prima facie case of permitting drunkenness had been established based on the evidence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring a grievor, a registered nurse returning from a medical leave for physical surgery, to provide answers to questions regarding her mental health.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as there was no basis to require a psychological assessment given that the grievor's absence was for physical, not mental, reasons.

The application for judicial review was granted and the arbitrator's award was set aside.