Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the LAT erred in its catastrophic impairment analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the LAT's findings regarding the appellant's pre-existing psychological conditions were factual determinations supported by evidence, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding police conduct during encampment clearings.

After the Toronto Police Service investigated and substantiated only one minor allegation, the applicant sought judicial review of the investigation's adequacy.

The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application was bound to fail because the applicant had not exhausted the mandatory administrative review process under section 71 of the Police Services Act, which requires seeking a review by the OIPRD before applying for judicial review.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that found the landlord did not unreasonably refuse to assign their lease to a family of five.

The LTB member had explicitly refused to consider whether the landlord's occupancy limits discriminated against the proposed assignees on the basis of family status under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB committed a serious error of law by failing to apply the Code when interpreting whether the refusal was 'arbitrary or unreasonable' under s. 95(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court articulated an adapted Moore test for assessing discrimination in lease assignments and remitted the matter to the LTB for a re-hearing.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision substituting a 30-day suspension for the discharge of a municipal standards officer.

The officer had been terminated for alleged anti-Black racism and harassment after an incident involving two Black women in a closed park.

The City argued the arbitrator erred by requiring proof of racial motivation for a finding of discrimination and by failing to transparently treat the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably responded to the City's specific allegations that the officer had singled out the complainants, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with the arbitrator's factual findings.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review seeking compensation from the school board for an alleged historical failure to diagnose and accommodate a learning disability.

The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether the application should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to award damages or compensation on an application for judicial review, making the application clearly doomed to fail.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decision regarding a grievance for a poisoned work environment.

The GSB found that the grievor's rights were violated but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress, stating the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) was the appropriate forum.

The applicant argued the GSB's decision was unreasonable because it simultaneously found the employer's conduct fell within the WSIA's 'employment function' mental stress exclusion while directing the grievor to the WSIA scheme.

The Divisional Court agreed, allowed the application, and remitted the matter back to the same GSB arbitrator to properly determine whether the exclusion applied.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was exempt from municipal taxes on certain railway lands under s. 315 of the Municipal Act.

The appellant argued the lands were leased to a third party for valuable consideration.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the agreements between the parties created a business relationship akin to a joint venture, not a lease, as they did not grant exclusive possession.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award regarding the reduction of hours for regular part-time nurses following a bed closure.

The arbitrator had found that while the hospital was not obliged to schedule part-time nurses to their committed hours if work was unavailable, failing to do so constituted a lay-off under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court held that these two findings were fundamentally inconsistent and led to an absurd result.

The court granted the application, setting aside the arbitration award as unreasonable, and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator.

The Law Society moved to strike a portion of the appellant's notice of appeal on the basis that it was filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.04.

The appellant had appealed a decision on the merits and a subsequent costs decision, believing the time to appeal the merits ran from the date of the costs decision.

The court found the appeal of the merits decision was out of time, but exercised its discretion under Rule 3.02 to extend the time for filing, noting the lack of prejudice to the Law Society and the inextricable link between the merits and costs decisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal to strike additional grounds and particulars from a Supplemental Notice of Proposal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing the strong presumption that administrative tribunal procedures should be completed before seeking judicial review, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that set aside official plan amendments intended to permit estate residential development in rural areas.

The Board found the amendments did not conform to the provincial Growth Plan, which directs new multiple lots to settlement areas.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation that the policy limits residential development in rural areas to three or fewer units.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to dismiss Dr. Deep's appeal for failing to comply with a previous order requiring him to post $20,000 as security for costs.

Dr. Deep had also failed to pay a $3,000 costs award and had not perfected a motion to set aside the orders, opting instead to commence a collateral action.

The court found that the collateral action was not a proper basis to defer the motion and rejected Dr. Deep's jurisdictional arguments.

The court granted Dr. Deep one final, limited opportunity to post the security for costs by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be dismissed by the Registrar without notice.

The applicants sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decisions refusing an Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendment for a retail development on formerly industrial lands.

The applicants argued the OMB erred in law by applying a 1994 Official Plan policy to lands that had been redesignated as 'employment areas' under the 2002 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the legal correctness of the OMB's policy-based decision, which reasonably interpreted the Official Plan and assessed the impact of 'retail contagion' on surrounding lands.

The appellant, who had been disbarred, brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for failure to perfect it within a year.

He also sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal and leave to file a Supplemental Notice of Appeal.

The court found that while his explanation for the delay was weak, he had an intention to perfect the appeal and would suffer irreparable harm if it were dismissed.

The court granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal but denied leave to file the Supplemental Notice of Appeal, which raised new issues.

Prestige Toys Ltd. appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking its motor vehicle dealer registration due to failure to disclose material facts to purchasers and misrepresenting selling prices.

The Registrar cross-appealed the Tribunal's refusal to revoke the salesperson registration of Lioubimova, the sole officer and director.

The Divisional Court dismissed Prestige's appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to consider the past conduct of both the corporation and its director.

The Court allowed the Registrar's cross-appeal, finding the Tribunal failed to properly analyze evidence of Lioubimova's personal involvement, and remitted her matter for a re-hearing.

The tenant appealed a Review Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that denied his request to review an eviction order for rent arrears.

The tenant sought to dispute the loss of his rent-geared-to-income subsidy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction under s. 203 of the Residential Tenancies Act to review decisions concerning eligibility for rent-geared-to-income assistance under the Social Housing Reform Act.

The Board's refusal to grant an adjournment was also found to be reasonable.

The appellant church appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board denying a property tax exemption for a warehouse property adjacent to the church.

The church argued the property was exempt under s. 3(1)3(i) of the Assessment Act as 'land used in connection with' a place of worship, as it was used for storage and youth programs.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by asking whether the property was a 'place of worship' rather than whether it was 'land used in connection with' a place of worship.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member for rehearing.

The applicants, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto, brought motions for leave to appeal an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The central issue was the Board's interpretation of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' under the Assessment Act, which led the Board to value the properties as if vacant and untenanted.

The Divisional Court found there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation, noting it may be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and prior case law.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer their complaints of discrimination based on handicap to a Board of Inquiry.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive full disclosure of the respondents' submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants received the same materials that were before the Commission and had a full opportunity to respond.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was within its discretion.