Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that time-barred her application for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The LAT found the two-year limitation period expired because the appellant received the denial letter on the day it was written.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the LAT erred in law by making a material finding of fact without evidence and by reversing the onus of proof onto the appellant to show when the letter was received.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing.

Three groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal from a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying appeal concerned a medical officer of health's order limiting migrant farm workers to a maximum of three persons per bunkhouse to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The court granted leave to intervene to the human rights organization and a coalition of legal clinics, finding they would make useful and distinct contributions regarding international human rights and the specific vulnerabilities of migrant workers.

The court dismissed the motion by the religious organization, finding it had not demonstrated a unique legal perspective or expertise.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The appellant admitted to professional misconduct involving false claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The Discipline Committee imposed a penalty that included a three-year prohibition on the appellant having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy or acting as a director of a corporation that owned a pharmacy.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked authority to impose these conditions under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's interpretation of its broad remedial authority under s. 51(2)3 of the Code to protect the public interest was reasonable.

The University of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a decision finding that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review brought by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.

The Association sought to challenge the compensation paid to two non-unionized employees, arguing it violated wage restraints under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the application, holding that the compensation decision was essentially a private employment matter lacking the requisite public law dimension for judicial review.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision which found that the respondent insured was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The insurer had denied the insured's claim for a non-earner benefit but failed to provide a copy of the medical report it relied upon until more than two years later.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable, as the failure to provide the medical report meant the insurer provided incomplete reasons for the denial, and thus the two-year limitation period did not commence until the report was finally provided.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision awarding the landlord $10,439.50 for damages to the rental unit, including a destroyed kitchen countertop.

The tenant argued the Board erred by relying on hearsay evidence in the form of repair estimates and by double-counting expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that hearsay evidence is permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the Board reasonably concluded the countertop needed replacement without double-counting.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the promulgation of a regulation prescribing minimum setback requirements for wind energy facilities.

The applicant argued the Minister of the Environment failed to consider the precautionary principle in the ministry's statement of environmental values, as required by section 11 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was protected by privative clauses and that the Minister had complied with the mandated process by considering all principles, including the precautionary principle, alongside other policy factors.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a Complaints Committee's finding of no misconduct by his treating physicians.

The applicant argued that the Committee breached procedural fairness by withholding the identity of an independent assessor, thereby preventing cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Committee exercises a screening function and owes a limited duty of procedural fairness to complainants, which does not include the right to cross-examine an assessor.

The applicants, two high school students, sought judicial review of a principal's decision to suspend them and transfer them to another school following a violent altercation.

The applicants argued the principal lacked jurisdiction to transfer them, breached procedural fairness, and violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the principal had the statutory authority to deny access and transfer students for safety reasons.

The court also held that there was no breach of procedural fairness and that the applicants failed to establish any Charter violations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying his request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to notes made by an independent investigator appointed by the City of Toronto.

The investigator had been retained to review the procurement process for the Union Station redevelopment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the investigator was an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the City.

Applying the correctness standard of review, the court concluded that the requested records were not in the custody or under the control of the City, and therefore were not subject to disclosure under the Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash two decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissing her complaints of privacy breaches under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the Commissioner had a statutory duty to investigate and adjudicate her complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commissioner's role regarding privacy complaints is advisory to the Legislature, not adjudicative.

Furthermore, the court found that the Commissioner's activities in gathering information for her annual report fall within parliamentary privilege and are not subject to judicial review.

The Board of Trustees appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that reversed the Board's refusal of the respondents' claim for compensation regarding a stolen vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence and that the Tribunal correctly addressed the issue of willful blindness without improperly shifting the onus to the Board.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeal of a minor variance without a full hearing.

The Board had found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and concluding that the Board did not err in law in its assessment of the evidence or the statutory requirements.

The City of Hamilton applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City was required to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective bargaining agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness, as the arbitrator was interpreting the collective agreement, not the legislation.

The Court found the arbitrator's conclusion that the premium constituted a 'cost' of the medicare plan under the agreement was not patently unreasonable, and would have been upheld even on a correctness standard.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that the collective agreement violated the Human Rights Code by providing different drug and hospital benefit coverage durations for employees receiving Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) benefits compared to those receiving long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator erred by failing to compare the two benefit schemes holistically.

When viewed in their entirety, the WSIA scheme provided significant advantages over the LTD plan, and the differential treatment did not constitute discrimination.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a policy grievance regarding vacation pay.

The union argued that employees with 1 to 3 years of seniority who worked overtime received less than the 4% minimum vacation pay required by the Employment Standards Act.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement's vacation package, which included guaranteed paid days regardless of actual earnings and increased entitlements with seniority, provided a greater benefit overall under s. 5(2) of the Act.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, noting the value of the guaranteed paid days, and dismissed the application.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons after admitting to professional misconduct for borrowing large sums of money from patients.

The Committee had ordered a 10-month suspension, part of which could be suspended upon making restitution of $108,000.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, emphasizing deference to professional discipline committees.

Finding no error in principle and noting the appellant's extraordinary breach of trust, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding he acted as an unregistered adviser and imposing sanctions, including a $300,000 costs order, for failing to disclose conflicts of interest while recommending securities at investment seminars.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was reasonableness for the merits and public interest findings.

The court upheld the Commission's findings that the appellant was in the business of advising and that his failure to disclose conflicts was contrary to the public interest.

However, the court found the Commission's process for determining the $300,000 costs award was procedurally unfair and remitted the costs issue back to the Commission.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of the total amounts paid by the Ministry for court-ordered legal representation of certain individuals in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the aggregate fee amounts were neutral information not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that the Commissioner's decision that the disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her request to reconsider a previous decision that denied her benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Tribunal had found a lack of temporal connection between her condition and her work.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonability and found that the Tribunal's findings of fact and refusal to reconsider were supported by medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.