Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Vaughan Council to suspend his pay for 90 days based on a report by the Integrity Commissioner.

The Commissioner found the applicant had improperly interfered with municipal tendering processes and attempted to obstruct her investigation.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Commissioner refused to disclose the names and statements of 32 witnesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the Baker factors to find that the Commissioner properly balanced the applicant's right to know the case against him with the need to protect cooperating staff from reprisals.

The court also rejected arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal confirming the director's issuance of renewable energy approvals for two wind turbine projects.

They argued that section 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a two-step process shifting the onus to the approval-holder, that the tribunal erred in rejecting the material contribution test for causation, and that they were denied procedural fairness when an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statute imposes a single onus on the appellants to prove harm, the material contribution test was properly rejected, and the tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment.

The respondent in an application for judicial review regarding autism funding brought a motion to strike the applicant's affidavits and dismiss the application due to the litigation guardian's failure to attend cross-examination.

The court declined to strike the affidavits or dismiss the application, finding that the filing of a Certificate of Perfection did not bar cross-examination, and instead ordered the litigation guardian to attend.

The court deferred the respondent's alternative requests to strike portions of the affidavits and to dismiss the application for mootness to the Divisional Court panel hearing the main application.

The court also awarded costs to the respondent for an unsuccessful recusal motion brought by the applicant.

The moving party, a dental surgeon, sought a stay of the revocation of his licence pending his appeal of a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a patient.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

The court found that while there were weak but arguable grounds regarding the existence of a doctor-patient relationship at the time of one incident, the overwhelming evidence of subsequent sexual abuse made a finding of misconduct and a period of suspension inevitable.

As the moving party would not suffer irreparable harm by beginning to serve an inevitable suspension, the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The City of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 117.

The City argued the Board erred in law by concluding that an Official Plan cannot be specific with respect to performance standards, such as height limits, and by failing to consider the evidence of the City's witnesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's decision to prefer flexible policies over prescriptive wording in this specific context was reasonable and within its jurisdiction.

The Court also found no error in the Board's treatment of the evidence.

The applicant, a Chartered Professional Accountant, sought judicial review to quash the respondent's decisions to investigate him and issue allegations of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate.

The applicant argued the respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and breached natural justice by refusing to identify the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature to intervene before the administrative process concluded and holding that the applicant had a duty to cooperate with the investigation.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that determined two policy grievances regarding the employer's Nuclear Resourcing Policy.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's reassignment of employees to available work within their job classification did not violate the job posting provisions of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the arbitrator's interpretation fell within a range of reasonable outcomes, as it followed established arbitral jurisprudence and considered the collective agreement as a whole.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner denying them permission to build a home on their land due to flood control concerns raised by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming a general legislative prohibition on development in floodplains and by elevating safety to a stand-alone head of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the proposed development would have no impact on flood control and directed the approval of the development without conditions.

The applicant, a paralegal, sought judicial review of a Law Society appeal panel decision that set aside findings of professional misconduct against him but directed a new hearing rather than staying the proceedings.

The applicant argued the appeal panel breached procedural fairness and provided insufficient reasons for refusing the stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the appeal panel reasonably concluded that the stay request should be addressed by a new hearing panel with the benefit of a full evidentiary record.

The applicants sought to bring their application for judicial review before a single judge of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The underlying application challenged the respondent hospital's decision to suspend the applicants' research activities following a finding of research misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish the requisite urgency or that a delay would result in a failure of justice, noting the applicants' own delay in bringing the application.

The matter was transferred to be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to stay a decision of the County Council lifting a stop work order and confirming a special permit that allowed the respondent landowner to cut trees on its property.

The applicant argued that the County Council denied it natural justice by accepting reply evidence without allowing rebuttal and by allowing two councillors who had not heard the evidence to vote.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding natural justice, as the reply evidence was responsive to unexpected assertions and the two mistakenly recorded votes made no mathematical difference to the outcome.

The court also found the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner adjudicator's decision ordering the City of Toronto to disclose portions of a software maintenance log under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the log contained confidential technical information exempt from disclosure under s. 10(1).

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision unreasonable, noting that the adjudicator applied the three-part exemption test inconsistently and failed to provide adequate justification for concluding the information was not supplied by the applicant.

The application was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordering it to grant the respondent's application for registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse registration based on the respondent's past conduct in British Columbia, which included a lifetime suspension as a mortgage sub-broker.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by applying the 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof instead of the statutory 'reasonable grounds for belief' standard under s. 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

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

The landlord brought a motion to lift a Certificate of Stay and dismiss the tenant's application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had sought judicial review instead of appealing the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court lifted the stay, finding it was improperly issued by the Registrar, and quashed the judicial review application because the tenant failed to exhaust his statutory appeal rights under the Residential Tenancies Act and the application lacked merit.

The applicant brought five applications seeking sweeping orders, including quashing judicial appointments, halting police promotions, and challenging the constitutionality of court rules.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the applications were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing and that the applications were based on hypothetical scenarios, the court dismissed all five applications as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that ordered her to repay a $209,912 lump sum to her former employer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant breached the confidentiality provision of a grievance settlement agreement by referencing the payment in a self-published book.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing because the union had not failed in its duty of fair representation.

Furthermore, the court held that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the repayment provision was a valid forfeiture clause, not an unconscionable penalty, and that the applicant had clearly breached the confidentiality terms.

During a judicial review proceeding, the court struck the applicant's affidavit from the record.

The court found that the affidavit contained argument and attempted to supplement the record before the Tribunal.

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that the affidavit fell within the exceptional circumstances set out in Keeprite that permit a party to file affidavit evidence to supplement the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board (ARB) decision dismissing its tax appeals for the 2003 and 2004 tax years as out of time.

The Divisional Court found that the ARB's interpretation of the limitation period under s. 357(3) of the Municipal Act was unreasonable because it failed to balance competing policy objectives of finality and equity, and failed to properly analyze the statutory provisions.

The court set aside the ARB's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, holding that the limitation period runs from the year the taxes are levied, not the calendar year to which they relate.

The applicants sponsored family members immigrating to Canada and signed undertakings to provide for their financial needs.

The sponsored family members received social assistance, resulting in debts owed by the applicants to the Province of Ontario.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to enforce the debts, arguing a breach of procedural fairness because the Ministry provided boilerplate responses and no proper reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Mavi, which held that the duty of fairness in these debt collection matters is minimal and does not require reasons.

The court found the Ministry considered individual circumstances and complied with the required procedural fairness obligations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto Appeal Division recommending his expulsion for academic offences involving forged transcripts.

The applicant argued the Appeal Division failed to properly weigh mitigating factors, including his remorse, first-offender status, and expert evidence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Appeal Division's decision on penalty was entitled to high deference.

The court concluded the Appeal Division's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible, and dismissed the application.