Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.

The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.

The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (now LECA) denying his request for a review of a police investigation into his complaints of excessive force during encampment clearings.

The applicant also moved to set aside a single judge's order quashing his judicial review application against the Toronto Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge correctly applied the 'plain and obvious' test and properly concluded that the applicant had to exhaust the statutory review process under section 71 of the Police Services Act before seeking judicial review.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application against LECA, holding that the Director's decision to deny the late request for review was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision upholding an educational institution's search for records as reasonable.

The applicant argued the Adjudicator erred by accepting a single affidavit from the institution's Privacy Officer rather than requiring separate affidavits from each staff member who conducted searches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator applied established principles, reasonably concluded the search was adequate, and accorded procedural fairness.

A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of a home builder's licence despite the sole owner's extensive criminal record.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by interpreting the 'integrity and honesty' criterion in s. 38(1)(b)(iii) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 as placing an onus on the Registrar to disprove the applicant's entitlement on a balance of probabilities.

The Court held that the provision allows the Registrar to deny a licence where it has reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not conduct itself with integrity and honesty, and the onus is on the applicant to prove otherwise.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging age discrimination in credit card travel insurance.

The HRTO had dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code applied.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator made a fundamental error by placing the onus on the applicant to prove that s. 22 did not apply, rather than on the respondents seeking to benefit from the exception.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant pharmacist appealed the decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists finding professional misconduct, imposing a penalty, and awarding costs of $190,000.

The misconduct involved billing for medications not prescribed or received, and falsifying records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Committee's decisions regarding misconduct, penalty, or costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had dismissed their motion to disqualify the insurer's counsel and adjuster for alleged conflict of interest and privacy breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of administrative decisions should not be brought until the tribunal proceedings are complete, and the applicants failed to establish that this was a rare case warranting early intervention.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Delegate held that the applicant was not entitled to deduct a lump sum amount received by the respondent for long-term disability benefits from an amount owing for past income replacement benefits.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's interpretation of s. 7(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to be reasonable, as the long-term disability benefits were not 'available' to the respondent at the time the income replacement benefits were due.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant was denied income replacement benefits after her insurer discovered she misrepresented her address to obtain a lower premium.

The insurer subsequently charged her a retroactive premium increase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial and refused to apply section 131 of the Insurance Act, which excuses non-compliance based on an insurer's conduct, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the LAT erred in law by conflating equitable remedies with statutory relief under section 131, which the LAT has jurisdiction to apply.

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

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting benefits to a worker who sustained paraplegia in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company truck.

The worker was driving home from work with coworkers and was found to be impaired by alcohol.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the worker was in the course of employment and that, despite his serious and wilful misconduct in driving impaired, he was entitled to benefits under s. 17 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because his injuries resulted in a serious impairment.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by failing to consider financial documents contained in his voluminous document brief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law, as the appellant had failed to enter the documents into evidence despite multiple directions and opportunities from the Adjudicator to do so.

The court also upheld the denial of an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of his application for registration as a Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner and Acupuncturist.

The appellant had failed the required prior learning assessment process (PLAR) case study assessment twice.

On appeal, he argued the Board erred in denying his request for an adjournment and in finding he did not meet the registration requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision to deny the adjournment or its reliance on the PLAR competency assessments.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal Appeal Committee decision upholding the refusal of a business licence for his night club.

The Divisional Court found that the hearing was procedurally unfair because the municipality's lawyer acted as both counsel and witness, and the applicant was effectively denied the right to present his case.

The court also held the decision was unreasonable as it lacked intelligible reasons explaining why the appeal was denied.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different appeal committee for reconsideration.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's decision finding he breached the municipal Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential and solicitor-client privileged information to external legal counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Integrity Commissioner's decision was reasonable because the applicant lacked authority to waive the municipality's privilege or disclose confidential procurement documents.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness during the investigation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the refusal to grant him financial assistance for shelter costs under the Ontario Works Act.

The appellant argued that requiring proof of incurred shelter costs contradicted the Act's definition of income assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as section 7 of the Act explicitly states that eligibility conditions are set by regulation, and the regulation limits shelter assistance to actual costs payable.

The appellants, Dairy Farmers of Ontario and Dairy Farmers of Canada, appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to intervene as added parties in an application challenging the constitutionality of mandatory milk pasteurization laws.

The Master had dismissed the motion based on the Supreme Court's decision in Northwestern, finding that allowing the appellants to intervene would violate their impartiality as administrative bodies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Master erred in applying Northwestern, as the underlying application was a constitutional challenge to a statute, not a judicial review of the appellants' own decisions.

The Court found the appellants met the criteria under Rule 13.01 and could make a useful contribution given their specialized expertise.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by giving little weight to unverified medical conditions when assessing the substantiality of her verified impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness and that the Tribunal correctly applied the law by considering the whole person without improperly relying on unverified impairments.