Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant, a provincially incorporated company that installs and maintains fibre optic cable for telecommunications networks, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying its bargaining unit under provincial law.

The applicant argued its operations were vital, essential, or integral to federally regulated telecommunications companies and thus subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the applicant's work was highly integrated with and integral to the ongoing operations of federal telecommunications undertakings.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the OLRB decision was quashed.

Following preliminary motions in an application for judicial review concerning a wind energy project, both the applicant and the intervenor sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for a motion for party status and a motion for protective costs.

The intervenor sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the motions were unnecessary.

The court found that the applicant was successful on the first motion, while the intervenor was successful on the second.

Noting the excessive costs claimed and inadequate cost outlines, the court concluded that the entitlements offset each other and made no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation after his housemate set fires in their residence and uttered death threats.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by requiring the appellant to prove the alleged offender intended to injure him through the arson, contrary to established case law.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Board for a re-hearing before a newly constituted panel.

The appellant fire chief appealed an order referring a fire safety inspection dispute back to the Office of the Fire Marshal.

The original inspection order required the installation of a sprinkler system.

The Fire Marshal upheld the order but allowed the respondents to submit alternative measures to the fire department for approval.

The fire department rejected the alternatives, and the appellant sought an order directing compliance.

The application judge found the Fire Marshal improperly delegated the final decision to the fire department without a mechanism for review, and referred the matter back to the Fire Marshal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the delegation was improper and the referral was a sensible exercise of discretion under s. 32 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the validity of certain provisions of a City of Ottawa zoning by-law.

The OMB had found some provisions valid, some invalid, and sent others back to the City for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while the issue was important and the standard of review was reasonableness, the appeal was premature because the final language of the by-law had not yet been settled by the City's reconsideration.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that stayed their action for unpaid health and welfare benefits to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The dispute arose following a union raid.

The Divisional Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court but dismissed the application, agreeing that the OLRB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations issues, should first determine its jurisdiction over the matter.

The plaintiff farmer raised wild boars and was told by the defendant City to remove them or face charges under an exotic animal by-law.

The plaintiff removed the boars, suffering financial loss, and was subsequently charged, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The plaintiff sued the City in negligence, arguing it failed to consider whether his operation was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from municipal by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The City appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the negligence claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City did not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to the plaintiff.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission referring a discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicants argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the postulancy process is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code and the subject matter of the complaint had ceased to exist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the relationship constitutes a 'service' is best decided in the first instance by the Tribunal, and that the amended complaint was properly before the Tribunal.

On a judicial review application, certain respondents moved to strike an exhibit to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of the Environment.

The exhibit, which detailed a delegation of authority under the Environmental Bill of Rights, was tendered to show that the Minister's obligations had not been delegated.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the exhibit, holding that it was not part of the record before the tribunal and that the rare circumstances permitting the supplementation of the record on judicial review, such as showing jurisdictional error, did not apply.

The appellant, a recipient of disability benefits, received a settlement for a personal injury action that included prejudgment interest.

The Director determined that the prejudgment interest was not exempt income under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, reducing the appellant's benefits.

The Social Benefits Tribunal affirmed this decision.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that prejudgment interest is paid 'for' pain and suffering as part of the overall compensation package.

The appeal was allowed, and the prejudgment interest was deemed exempt income.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for falsifying a record and contravening a condition of his certificate of registration.

The Committee had imposed a penalty that included a reprimand, an ethics course, and a requirement to appoint an independent quality advisor for his diagnostic imaging clinics.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct, concluding it was reasonable based on the evidence that the appellant attached another physician's electronic signature to a quality advisor agreement without authorization.

However, the Court found the penalty requiring an independent quality advisor was unreasonable as it was not rationally connected to the misconduct found, and varied the penalty to remove that condition.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar to carry out a proposal to refuse and revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

The Tribunal had held that the Registrar had the onus to show he believed there were reasonable grounds for the proposal, and that the Tribunal owed deference to the Registrar's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending its role.

Under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the Tribunal is required to make its own assessment of the facts and has the explicit statutory authority to substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar, owing no deference to the Registrar's initial proposal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The moving party, the Chief of Police, brought a motion to have two applications for judicial review heard at the same time pursuant to Rule 6.01(1).

Both applications arose from a decision of the Toronto Police Services Board regarding the delay in serving notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The court found that the applications arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and shared common questions of law and fact.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results, the court granted the motion and ordered the applications to be heard together.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to proceed with the construction of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West, arguing it contravened the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court released a short endorsement granting the application and setting aside the City's decision to proceed with the project, with formal reasons to follow.

The court noted the urgency of the matter to avoid wasted construction costs.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of an Order in Council removing him from office following a public inquiry.

The inquiry commissioner found that the applicant had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including denying due process and abusing judicial power in three separate incidents.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the commissioner's findings, concluding that it was reasonable to hold a justice of the peace to the same high standard of conduct as a judge.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant sought to raise a Charter issue on appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The appellant had failed to serve a Notice of Constitutional Question before the Discipline Committee, which refused to hear the issue.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the Charter issue for the first time on appeal, finding that the appellant was aware of the notice requirement and that the Attorney General would be prejudiced by the lack of an evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his appeal from an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The Board had determined that the applicant resigned and was not constructively dismissed when asked to perform grinding operations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's conclusion was supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Seneca College brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its application to dismiss the union's judicial review for undue delay.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to allow the judicial review to proceed despite a 19-month delay, as there was no actual prejudice to the college.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants, a lawyer and his law firm, sought judicial review to prohibit the Ontario Securities Commission from continuing proceedings against the lawyer under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act.

The Commission alleged the lawyer made misleading statements in a letter during a prospectus review.

The applicants and the Law Society of Upper Canada argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to discipline lawyers acting in a professional capacity, asserting such power belonged exclusively to the Law Society and that the Commission's exercise of it violated the independence of the bar.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that s. 127(1) applies to lawyers and that the Commission's public interest jurisdiction to control its processes does not usurp the Law Society's role or infringe the rule of law.