Administrative Law - ODC

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to his tenancy under the s. 5(j) business exemption.

The Board found the predominant purpose of the tenancy was to operate an Airbnb short-term rental business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test and the tenant's challenge raised issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

A motions judge struck her affidavit containing evidence not before the HRTO and subsequently dismissed her motion to adduce further evidence as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The applicant brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside those decisions.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time and that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in applying the general rule against admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The University of Windsor brought a motion for a publication ban and sealing order in an application for judicial review of a university adjudicator's decision finding the applicant committed sexual assault.

The motion sought to protect the identity of the complainant and other individuals who made complaints.

Applying the test from Sherman Estate, the court granted the publication ban and a modified sealing order, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of preserving the dignity of sexual assault complainants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university adjudicator's decision regarding her sexual assault complaint against another student.

The adjudicator had deferred the outcome of the university's disciplinary appeal to the result of the respondent's pending criminal trial.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the adjudicator unlawfully delegated his decision-making authority and improperly imported the criminal standard of proof into an administrative proceeding.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The Cornwall Community Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that required a 12% payment in lieu of benefits to all part-time employees, including retirees, and awarded retroactive payments back to 2007 covering expired collective agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's determination of his own jurisdiction to grant retroactive remedies under expired agreements was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and was reasonable based on the Police Services Act and arbitral jurisprudence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision that denied his application for a paralegal license on the basis that he was ungovernable.

The applicant argued that the Chair of the Hearing Panel should have recused herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Appeal Panel lacked independence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded there was no apprehension of bias and that the tribunal's structure met the requisite degree of independence as directed by the legislature.

The applicant, a tenant of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), sought judicial review of a decision removing his rent-geared-to-income subsidy.

The subsidy was removed after the applicant failed to provide requested corporate financial information and bank statements for his legal professional corporation.

The applicant argued that the TCHC breached procedural fairness and failed to accommodate his disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the TCHC provided ample opportunity to comply, the process was fair, and there was no evidence that the applicant's disabilities prevented him from providing the required documentation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to loss of earnings benefits due to her failure to accept offers of modified duties from her employer.

The applicant argued she was not given proper notice of the possible permanent termination of her benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as there was ample evidence supporting the finding of notice and the applicant's capability to perform modified work.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

During an appeal, an added party sought to raise a Charter challenge to provisions of the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the constitutional question, noting that the evidentiary record was woefully inadequate.

Furthermore, the order adding the party explicitly stated that it was not to unduly widen the scope of the appeal.

The court held that a Charter application could be brought at any time on a proper record, but it would not be heard in the current appeal nor referred back to the motions judge.

The appellant appealed a decision declining to exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction regarding his detention as an involuntary patient at a psychiatric hospital.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the underlying decision was a final order, meaning any appeal must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would have declined to hear the appeal as the issue was moot and no live controversy remained.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that reinstated the original results of a horse race, overturning a prior decision by the track Stewards regarding interference.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness due to lack of notice, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and challenged the tribunal's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that actual notice was established, there was no evidence of bias, and the tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the revocation of his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant demonstrated willful blindness regarding stolen vehicles found on his lot and noted several Highway Traffic Act convictions indicating a lack of honesty and integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's credibility findings or its reliance on the appellant's past conduct.

The applicant brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from examinations in a judicial review application concerning the respondent's authority to enforce notice of licence cancellation.

The court reviewed transcripts and correspondence, ruling on obvious relevancy issues and leaving the remainder to the Divisional Court panel to determine, noting the competing views on the scope of the record.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissing his application against the landlord for harassment and coercion.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application on a non-suit motion by the landlord's agent, finding the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the tenant was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the non-suit motion or call his remaining witnesses.

The Court also found the Tribunal Member misapprehended the evidence regarding intimidation and failed to control the abusive conduct of the landlord's agent.

The Tribunal's order was quashed and a new hearing directed.

A former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that overturned a publication ban on his name following a finding of professional misconduct.

The student had misappropriated $20,000 from a client.

The Discipline Committee had ordered a publication ban to aid his rehabilitation, but the Appeal Committee found this was an error in principle, as the conduct involved moral turpitude requiring general deterrence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, upholding the Appeal Committee's decision to publish the student's name.

The appellant physician pleaded guilty to defrauding OHIP of $75,000 and received a criminal sentence.

Subsequently, the College's Discipline Committee ordered a 12-month licence revocation, suspended by six months upon payment of a fine and costs.

The appellant appealed the penalty, arguing the Committee overemphasized general deterrence and failed to consider proportionality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the effective six-month suspension was a measured response to the escalating problem of health care fraud and was not unreasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his licence for sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that judicial review is rarely permitted when a right of appeal exists and was waived.

Furthermore, on the merits, the court found that the applicant and his counsel had clearly admitted before the Committee to conduct constituting sexual abuse that mandated revocation.