Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of five decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal spanning from 2008 to 2018.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first four decisions due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting both presumed and actual prejudice as the Tribunal's records had been destroyed.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's 2018 decision refusing to reconsider a 2009 decision, finding it reasonable given the unexplained seven-year delay in requesting the reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against officers of the London Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the officers discriminated against him based on his gender during an intimate partner dispute.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act, concluding that the underlying issues regarding access to the matrimonial home and corporate property were better suited for family, civil, or landlord and tenant courts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and adequately explained.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a grievor who had been discharged for fraudulent misconduct, substituting a ten-day suspension.

The arbitrator found the employer engaged in discriminatory treatment because other employees who committed similar misconduct received significantly lighter penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably shifted the evidentiary onus to the employer after the union established a prima facie case of discriminatory discipline, and reasonably concluded the penalty was appropriate.

The appellant sought to appeal several interlocutory orders made by an Acting Referee under the Drainage Act, including an order dismissing a recusal motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on multiple grounds.

First, the appellant lacked standing as he was not the registered owner of the property.

Second, the orders appealed from were interlocutory and therefore final and not subject to appeal under section 106(3) of the Drainage Act.

Finally, the court found no unfairness in the Acting Referee hearing his own recusal motion, as this accords with usual practice.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was unreasonable because its credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant was fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and lacked transparency.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicants sought judicial review of two interim decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a workplace discrimination complaint.

The Tribunal had denied the applicants' request to dismiss the complaint for being outside the limitation period, finding that the allegations constituted a series of incidents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's decisions were interlocutory and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision finding it unwilling or unable to resolve warranty claims, which allowed Tarion to abridge vendor repair periods.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application without hearing the merits, finding that the issue was moot because the repair periods had long expired and Tarion had already undertaken the repairs.

The court also noted the applicant's unreasonable delay in bringing the application and the availability of an alternative remedy through an existing civil action.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission, which found that the respondent was not obliged to pay $100,000 in investigatory costs.

The Panel concluded that the applicant's Director had given the respondent the option to not renew its licence and avoid paying the costs, an option the respondent accepted.

The Divisional Court held that the Director had the discretion to offer this option and that the Panel's decision was reasonable and correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a postgraduate medical resident in Cardiac Surgery, sought judicial review of a university Senate Appeals Committee decision requiring her to enter a six-month remediation period before advancing to the next year of her program.

She argued the decision was unreasonable and that she was denied procedural fairness due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, an inability to cross-examine witnesses, and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the academic decision was reasonable and that the requirements of procedural fairness were met, noting courts should only interfere in university academic affairs in cases of manifest unfairness.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his claim that he was terminated for union activity.

On the judicial review application, the applicant filed a 32-page affidavit.

The respondent NHL brought a motion to strike the affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that affidavit evidence on judicial review is only admissible to show a complete absence of evidence on an essential point or a breach of natural justice.

The court found the applicant was improperly attempting to re-weigh the evidence before the Board.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that dismissed his motion for a stay of a hearing of a Notice of Proposal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory right of appeal under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act applies only to final decisions, not interlocutory orders.

Furthermore, the court found the appeal to be premature, as the tribunal should be permitted to complete its work before appellate procedures are launched.

The applicant was seriously injured at work and received WSIB benefits.

The WSIB failed to recognize a potential third-party claim against the equipment manufacturer and did not send the applicant an election form.

When the applicant later sought to sue the manufacturer, the WSIB ruled his receipt of benefits constituted a deemed election and refused to allow him to withdraw his claim without immediate repayment of all benefits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the WSIB made a patent error in finding a deemed election where the applicant was uninformed, and improperly applied an inflexible rule rather than exercising its discretion based on the merits of the case.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

The respondents argued the application was moot because they had sought approval of a second site plan.

The Divisional Court rejected the mootness argument and held it had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the application.

The court ordered the application for judicial review stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal of the second site plan to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, noting that if the second site plan is approved, the application will become moot.

The applicant ratepayer sought a mandatory order (mandamus) to compel the respondent municipality to enforce its by-laws regarding sight lines at two intersections.

The municipality had inspected the intersections and determined they were not hazardous.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that a municipality cannot be compelled by mandamus to enforce a by-law enacted under a discretionary power, and courts should not interfere with the exercise of municipal discretion.

The applicant witnessed a police officer use excessive force against a woman and filed a complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refused to deal with the complaint, finding the applicant was not 'directly affected' by the conduct.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and that the applicant, as a firsthand witness who was disturbed by the incident, was 'directly affected' within the meaning of the Act.

The application was granted and the complaint remitted to the Chief of Police.

The appellant Township appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that approved a zoning by-law amendment for a specialty stone quarry without requiring the respondent to rebuild an access road to current municipal standards.

The Township argued that its Official Plan mandated a road maintenance agreement prior to rezoning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Official Plan provision was discretionary and specifically applied to gravel trucks, which was inapplicable as the site would not extract gravel.

The Board properly considered the Planning Act requirements regarding transportation needs and municipal finances.

The applicants abandoned their applications for judicial review one week prior to the scheduled hearing, shortly after receiving the responding union's factum.

The parties agreed to make written submissions on costs.

The union sought over $15,000, while the applicants argued for significantly lower amounts.

Noting that there was no hearing but acknowledging the union's preparation of a factum, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the union at $6,500 for fees, plus disbursements and GST.

The respondent Commission brought a motion to quash a judicial review application filed by the applicants.

The applicants sought to review the Commission's refusal to enter into a settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Commission's discretion to enter into a settlement is not a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as it does not affect legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

No costs were awarded due to miscommunications between the parties.

The applicant student was required to withdraw from his course of studies at the respondent college.

He appealed the decision but received disclosure of the case against him only three days before the hearing.

His requests for a short adjournment to prepare a response were denied.

The Divisional Court held that the refusal to grant an adjournment in these circumstances was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The decisions of the appeal panel and the Ombudsman were quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly constituted appeal panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer his grievance to binding arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, thoughtful, and supported by the record, concluding the union acted reasonably and not in bad faith.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.