Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.

The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The moving party, McMaster University, brought a motion for leave to proceed with an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's determination, and requested a stay pending the review.

The Divisional Court granted leave to proceed with the judicial review but denied the request for a stay.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $8,800 to follow in the cause.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,142.00.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of two decisions made by Superior Court judges.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 indicating the application appeared to be an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of Superior Court judges.

The applicant argued that her Charter claims superseded statutory jurisdictional limits.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the Charter does not expand the statutory limits of the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on creed after her employment was terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, found no denial of procedural fairness, and concluded that the Tribunal's determination that the applicant's singular belief against the vaccine did not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed their motion for a voiding order without notice to the landlords.

The Divisional Court held that the Residential Tenancies Act does not confer a right of appeal from interlocutory orders.

The tenants' notice of appeal was quashed, and the statutory stay of the LTB endorsement was terminated, with the tenants granted an extension to seek leave to appeal.

The College of Early Childhood Educators appealed a penalty order imposing a four-month suspension and conditions on an early childhood educator for failing to supervise a child and breaching professional standards.

The College sought revocation of the educator's license, arguing the penalty was clearly unfit and inconsistent with the misconduct findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Discipline Committee properly considered mitigating factors, including a five-year period where the educator could not work due to unproven abuse allegations, and did not err in applying the principle of proportionality.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay $23,054.10 in rent and compensation to the respondent landlords.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Board refused her last-minute request for an adjournment on the basis of a religious holiday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

The court noted the appellant failed to provide timely notice of the conflict, did not comply with the Board's rules for adjournment requests, and had previously failed to comply with conditions attached to a prior adjournment.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation RGI Review Body that refused to review her rent-geared-to-income calculations from 2010 to 2017.

The Review Body had determined that the request was beyond the 12-month deadline and did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances.

The Divisional Court found that the Review Body unreasonably interpreted its own rules by concluding that a hard 12-month cap applied even if exceptional circumstances existed.

The court also held that the Review Body fettered its discretion and failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that exceptional circumstances were not met.

The application was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him as an unauthorized occupant.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused an adjournment, denied his request for human rights accommodation, and removed him from the virtual hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was the author of his own misfortune due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to follow the adjudicator's directions.

The Court also found no errors of law in the Board's determination that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant rather than a tenant.

The Employer applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the Union as the bargaining agent for heavy equipment operators.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board found its pleadings deficient regarding the status of 18 employees and refused to allow amendments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the Board applied established pleading standards for construction industry status disputes.

The Court also held the Board's refusal to allow amendments was reasonable due to the prejudice the delay would cause the Union.

The Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal granting the respondent registration as a motor vehicle salesperson despite an outstanding arrest warrant in Alberta for failing to attend court on an assault charge.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders as evidence that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

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

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal that refused or revoked their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness by the Vice-Chair's conduct of the hearing.

The respondent conceded that the unrepresented appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal for the unrepresented appellant and remitted his matter for a rehearing.

However, the court dismissed the appeal for the represented appellants, finding that while the hearing was conducted perfunctorily, they were not denied basic procedural rights such as cross-examination.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending new medical evidence filed before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal correctly weighed the new evidence, determining it was either inconsistent with earlier reports or reflected a deterioration in condition after the Director's decision.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the current value assessment of its independent grocery store.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by restricting its comparable properties to only the 'most similar' independent grocery stores, rather than considering all 'similar' grocery stores in the vicinity as required by the Assessment Act.

The court found there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, as limiting comparables to near equivalency could constitute a methodological error of law rather than a mere factual finding.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The interveners in a judicial review application concerning the Crown's duty to consult brought a motion for a Kelly v. Canada Order to add 28 Indian Bands as parties.

The applicants opposed the motion, arguing it was offensive to Aboriginal custom and unnecessary as they were the true rights holders.

The court granted the motion, finding that adding the bands as party respondents was necessary to ensure all potential rights holders were before the court and to avoid the risk of multiple proceedings and inconsistent results.

The Ontario Energy Board brought a motion to quash two summonses issued by the appellant to a Board member and the Board's external counsel.

The appellant sought to examine them in aid of a motion to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the external counsel's firm had represented the appellant's competitors and was a member of an industry association.

The Divisional Court quashed both summonses, finding that the proposed lines of inquiry were irrelevant to the objective test for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also analyzed testimonial immunity under s. 10 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, deliberative secrecy, and solicitor-client privilege, finding multiple additional grounds to quash the Board member's summons and partial grounds to quash the external counsel's summons.

The applicant lawyer, facing a discipline hearing regarding alleged participation in mortgage fraud, sought a stay of the hearing pending his application for judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel's refusal to order further disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the judicial review application was premature as the tribunal's refusal to order production of documents did not go to its jurisdiction.

The court also found that the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured not staying the discipline proceedings to avoid fragmenting the administrative process.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review regarding the cancellation of an off-leash dog park designation at Ledbury Park.

The City argued the cancellation was an administrative or political decision not subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the cancellation of the off-leash designation affected the legal rights, privileges, and immunities of dog owners, and therefore constituted the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The property owners sought leave to appeal an amended decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding omitted property assessments for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 taxation years following home renovations.

The owners argued the Board erred in law by allowing the omitted assessments, claiming the issues were barred by issue estoppel and res judicata.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion that the omitted assessments were properly returned for the additional square footage was a determination of fact, not a question of law as required by section 43.1(1) of the Assessment Act.