Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order refusing her request for access to a document under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The IPC had found the document exempt from disclosure because it would result in an unjustified invasion of another party's privacy and could reasonably be expected to endanger their physical safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's conclusion that the personal information was inextricably intertwined and could not be severed was reasonable.

The applicant, a medical school graduate, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Examiners requiring him to undergo remediation for a lapse in professionalism.

The applicant had initiated an internal appeal but abandoned it, choosing instead to complete the remediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his internal appeal remedies and demonstrated no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the administrative process.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding her $3,000 for two incidents of violence but denying her other claims.

The appellant argued the Board erred in failing to compensate her for other incidents, awarding insufficient damages for pain and suffering, and failing to compensate for increased rent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board proceeding in the appellant's absence after she failed to attend the hearing.

The Court held that the Board's factual findings were reasonable based on the record before it, and noted that the appellant's attempt to introduce new evidence should be directed to the Board under its statutory power to vary decisions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they perpetrated a fraud relating to securities and breached their duties as investment fund managers.

The appellants argued the Commission lost jurisdiction when a single commissioner proceeded with the sanctions hearing after the other commissioner's appointment expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the Commission to override quorum requirements to proceed expeditiously.

The Court also upheld the Commission's findings of fraud, concluding that subjective awareness of the intended consequences could be inferred from the appellants' actions, and affirmed the sanctions imposed, including significant disgorgement orders.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding that he sexually abused a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's structure of analysis effectively reversed the burden of proof by eliminating alternative scenarios based on an absence of evidence.

The Court also found the Committee compounded this error by relying on the absence of mental health evidence after denying the appellant's application for third-party records, and by improperly using prior consistent statements to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment but not a substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence and concluding that the Tribunal's reasons were adequate and reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation for injuries sustained in an assault.

The Board found the assault was directly related to his activities as a drug trafficker and his injury was a foreseeable consequence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of proportionality principles or its admission of hearsay evidence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Correctional Service of Canada brought an urgent motion to stay a ruling by the Coroner presiding over the Ashley Smith inquest.

The Coroner had dismissed CSC's motion for a sealing order regarding confidential documents and videos.

Applying the RJR Macdonald test, the Divisional Court found that CSC failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm, noting that much of the information was already public and the assertions of harm were speculative.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a public interest group opposing the use of diesel trains on the air rail link, brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit after completing cross-examinations.

The affidavit sought to explain the applicant's delay in bringing its application for judicial review.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2) and found that the evidence was relevant, responsive to cross-examination, would not cause non-compensable prejudice, and had a reasonably adequate explanation for its late filing.

Leave was granted to file the affidavit, subject to the exclusion of several irrelevant paragraphs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Land Titles to freeze the land records for a property after the applicant registered a self-to-self transfer despite having no prior interest in the land.

The applicant argued the Director lacked the authority under the Registry Act to freeze the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director had the jurisdiction under sections 23, 97(f), and 97.1(c) of the Registry Act to investigate and take preventative action against suspicious registrations.

The court also held that the Director's decision to freeze the records was reasonable and noted it would deny relief under its inherent jurisdiction as the applicant was attempting to create an interest in land where none existed.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a landowner regarding a Minister's zoning order and a declaration of provincial interest.

The Minister argued the application should be dismissed for delay or prematurity, or alternatively, that portions of the supporting affidavits should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no unexplained delay, concluding it was not a clear case of prematurity to be decided by a single judge, and leaving the evidentiary issues for the panel hearing the merits.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her application for compensation for alleged sexual assaults.

The Board found her evidence vague and unreliable, concluding she did not establish she was a victim of a crime.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Board's findings were factual and not subject to appeal, which is limited to questions of law.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide a therapy report form or by not adjourning the hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a foreign-trained physician, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The appellant had participated in a practice assessment program but failed to meet the non-exemptible standards for registration, including sufficient knowledge, skill, judgment, and mental competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board and the College's Registration Committee complied with procedural fairness and reasonably concluded the appellant lacked the required qualifications to practice medicine in Ontario.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding a refused tree removal permit.

The right of appeal under s. 136(1) of the Municipal Act had been repealed before the permit was refused.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the moving party had no vested right of appeal upon merely filing the application, as the right only arises upon an actual refusal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's award that allowed a grievance regarding holiday pay for daycare workers.

The arbitrator had interpreted the collective agreement to conclude that holiday pay was conditional on the employee working the day immediately following the holiday they were required to work, which in this case was after a summer layoff.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court found the arbitrator's subjective interpretation of the collective agreement was within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent college's decision to involuntarily withdraw her from its nursing program for breaching an Academic Behaviour Contract.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, as she was advised of the allegations and given the opportunity to respond before both the Academic Administrator and the Vice President (Academic).

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding development projects in a mixed industrial-residential area.

The Board had approved predominantly residential developments, rejecting the municipality's policy requiring a minimum non-residential component to preserve employment lands.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's failure to properly consider the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statements, and the Official Plan raised questions of law of sufficient importance, and there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

The applicants, several police officers, brought a motion for a limited publication ban regarding Notices of Hearing and the Chief of Police's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that inadequate notice was given for the relief regarding the Notices of Hearing, and that the applicants failed to satisfy the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban on the Chief's report, agreeing with the prior endorsement of the motion judge.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that denied the Ottawa local union a provincially negotiated increase for room and board under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator interpreted the Memorandum of Settlement contrary to its plain words, which granted the increase unless the local union had already negotiated an increase.

Since the Ottawa local had not negotiated an increase, its members were entitled to the provincial increase.

The court held the arbitrator's interpretation was patently unreasonable and quashed the award.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission disqualifying a horse for a positive drug test and suspending and fining its trainer.

The trainer argued the positive test resulted from contamination or an unknown metabolic process of a permitted drug, and that the Commission applied an absolute liability standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's rejection of the contamination theory was not patently unreasonable and that the trainer breached the standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records.

The court also rejected the argument that the tribunal Chair's questioning of the trainer was unfair.