Administrative Law - ODC

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of an employment standards officer's decision, over ten months after the decision was rendered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was excessive, there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, and the respondent would suffer prejudice.

Furthermore, the court found no apparent grounds for relief, noting the moving party failed to pursue a de novo review before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant, a lawyer disbarred in Florida and Illinois for exploiting elderly clients, appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding his disbarment in Ontario.

The Law Society relied on the foreign disciplinary decisions, arguing they should be recognized and given preclusive effect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Panel correctly applied the test for recognizing foreign judgments and issue estoppel, and that the appellant's arguments constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Florida proceedings.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a 47-ward structure for the City of Toronto's municipal elections.

They argued the Board erred in law by failing to prioritize voter parity and by not requiring a corresponding by-law changing the composition of City Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's application of the Carter principles for effective representation.

The court held that the moving parties were improperly challenging findings of fact and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine council composition.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed a final order of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that increased the annual pole attachment charge payable to Hydro One Networks Inc. The appellants argued that the OEB breached procedural fairness by expanding the scope of their review and vary motion to include new evidence and issues, and erred in law by refusing to order production of a pole sharing agreement between Hydro One and Bell Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB conducted the hearing fairly by granting the appellants' request for a hearing de novo and allowing all parties to present updated evidence.

The Court also held that the OEB's refusal to order production of the actual agreement, while requiring disclosure of its relevant financial impacts, was within its procedural jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.

The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refer two students' complaints of racial discrimination to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The applicants argued that the Commission breached procedural fairness by relying on an undisclosed expert report and that the investigator's summary of the report created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's disclosure met the duty of fairness for its gatekeeping function and that the decision was not patently unreasonable or tainted by bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying accidental death and 'killed in the line of duty' benefits to the estate of a firefighter who died of renal cancer caused by occupational exposure to toxic substances.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's application of common law insurance principles to conclude the death was not accidental was incorrect and rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The Court found that the firefighter's death from an occupational illness was unexpected and not caused solely by natural causes, thus qualifying as an accidental death and occurring in the line of duty.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the employer was ordered to pay the benefits.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to continue, subject to conditions, the restaurant licences of four establishments with histories of public health violations.

The City argued the decisions were patently unreasonable and that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to provide adequate reasons, and interfering in the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and that the hearings were conducted fairly without any breach of natural justice.

Apotex Inc. sought judicial review of regulations enacted by the Ontario government that reduced the reimbursement price of generic prescription drugs to 50% of brand-name drugs.

Apotex argued the government failed to meet its statutory obligations for public consultation and consideration under Bill 102, and breached procedural fairness based on legitimate expectations.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association intervened.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the government met the notice and consultation requirements, the Lieutenant Governor in Council did not exceed its jurisdiction in altering the proposed regulations, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply to purely legislative functions.

The applicant, a First Nations Constable with the Anishinabek Police Service (APS), was terminated by the Chief of Police following allegations of sexual misconduct.

The termination occurred without a hearing, contrary to the APS Code of Conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that although the APS was created by a tripartite agreement and not by statute, it is a public body fulfilling a governmental function and is therefore subject to judicial review.

The court found that the applicant was a public office holder entitled to procedural fairness, which he was denied.

The decision to terminate was quashed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.

The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.

The appellant insurance broker appealed the revocation of its certificate of registration by the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO).

The revocation was based on the appellant's failure to maintain at least two contracted standard insurance markets, as required by RIBO guidelines interpreting the regulatory requirement to conduct business as an insurance broker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee had the implied statutory authority to revoke the certificate, reasonably interpreted the regulation, and properly proceeded without a hearing because the appellant failed to request one after receiving notice.

Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that disallowed the recovery of $11 million in costs related to new pipeline routes.

The Board had found that Enbridge did not act prudently in incurring the costs, but Enbridge argued the Board erred by using hindsight in its prudence analysis.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while hindsight can be used to rebut the presumption of prudence, the Board committed an error of law by considering hindsight factors in the actual prudence analysis.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding compensation to the complainant for alleged sexual and physical abuse.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainant's uncorroborated evidence over conflicting evidence, and by relying on a medical report that was never disclosed to the appellants.

The Board's decision was quashed and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The Ontario Divisional Court issued a decision on costs following an appeal.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 plus GST, awarded to the appellant, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and payable by the respondent, Dr. Darren Payne.

No costs were awarded against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board that required the College's Registration Committee to issue a certificate of registration to the respondent doctor.

The Registration Committee had previously refused the application on the basis that the respondent was ungovernable due to past disciplinary issues in Quebec.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by failing to show deference to the specialized expertise of the Registration Committee regarding the respondent's qualifications and ethical fitness to practice medicine.

The matter was remitted back to the Registration Committee for further consideration in light of new evidence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration decision that allowed the employer municipality to fill new positions using management rights clauses rather than seniority provisions from predecessor collective agreements following amalgamation.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding it patently unreasonable to apply management rights while ignoring the seniority provisions to which those rights were subject under the statutorily mandated composite collective agreement.

The applicants, competitors in the wastewater treatment system market, sought judicial review of a decision by the Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC) to amend their previously granted authorizations.

The BMEC initiated the review on its own motion due to interpretation difficulties and potential health and safety concerns.

The Divisional Court held that while the BMEC lacked express statutory authority to amend the authorizations outside of specific conditions, it possessed implied legislative authority to reconsider its decisions where public health and safety warranted, and was therefore not functus officio.

However, the Court quashed the BMEC's decision, finding that the BMEC breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicants with adequate notice and disclosure of the information underlying the proposed amendments, thereby depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to respond.