Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant sought to commence an application for judicial review of a 2016 Human Rights Tribunal decision, which was identical to an application previously dismissed by the court.

The court dismissed the new application and the motion for an extension of time under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not bring further proceedings against the respondent without prior written permission.

The applicant, a non-Catholic student at a Catholic high school, challenged a school board policy requiring student trustees to be Roman Catholic.

The Divisional Court held that the policy was not protected by the denominational school rights in s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because the role of student trustee did not exist at Confederation and does not involve governance.

The court found the policy violated the equality rights of non-Catholic students under s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

Furthermore, the policy was found to be ultra vires the school board as it conflicted with provincial regulations.

The policy was quashed.

The moving party, the City of Toronto, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving party's factum.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $10,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellant, a municipal councillor, appealed a decision declaring her seat vacant for breaching the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The application judge found she intentionally used her position to influence council regarding a fire department service charge levied against her son, and failed to leave a closed meeting where the matter was discussed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the application judge's findings on liability or the imposition of the penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed the Ontario College of Nurses' decision not to further investigate her complaint against a nurse.

The complaint, alleging falsified medical records at a fertility clinic, was made a decade after the events.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the application as frivolous and vexatious.

Finding no arguable error in HPARB's reliance on contemporaneous medical records over the applicant's decade-old personal recollection, the court dismissed the application.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying dispute regarding a discriminatory driver's licensing policy had been resolved in the applicant's favour by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and the policy was subsequently amended.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding that the underlying legal issue—whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a standalone Charter claim—is an important issue that may be evasive of appellate review.

The mootness issue was left to be decided by the full panel hearing the application on the merits.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The self-represented applicant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which had dismissed his complaints against medical professionals as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

After reviewing the Record of Proceedings, the Divisional Court found the applicant's allegations to be bizarre and indicative of delusions.

The court issued a second notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why his appeal should not be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

A case management endorsement addressing correspondence from counsel for the Concerned Citizens of North Stormont regarding a potential recusal motion based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that no decision had been made to proceed with the motion and discussed the potential application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court left it to the parties to decide how to proceed, noting that ongoing settlement discussions could affect their decisions.

The applicant, previously disciplined for unauthorized use of the title 'Doctor', brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside the Divisional Court's prior decision upholding her discipline.

She alleged fraud and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the College's internal procedures for referring matters to discipline.

She also sought to disqualify the College's counsel, and a third party sought leave to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, finding no fraud, no procedural unfairness, and that the fresh evidence would not have altered the original outcome.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Judicial Council's disposition of his complaint against a Small Claims Court judge.

The complaint took 584 days to resolve, which the applicant argued was an unreasonable delay.

The Divisional Court found that while the applicant had standing to bring the application, the OJC's procedure and disposition were reasonable and mandated by statute.

The application was dismissed, but costs were awarded to the unsuccessful applicant due to the OJC's delay and misleading correspondence regarding the availability of judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award regarding the contracting out of hospital sterilization services, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive formal notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had actual notice of the hearing, its timing, and the issues in dispute, but chose not to attend.

The court also noted that the contracting out had been completed and there was no longer any tangible dispute between the parties, making judicial review inappropriate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which proceeded in his absence after denying his request for an adjournment.

The appellant also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence, claiming he had not received a letter outlining the shortcomings of his medical documentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the appellant had received the letter and his failure to provide the evidence earlier was due to a lack of diligence.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's refusal to grant a further adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion and not a denial of natural justice, as the appellant had failed to comply with the reasonable conditions attached to a previous adjournment.

The applicant was dismissed from his employment after being arrested and charged with a criminal offence.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing that being charged with an offence is a 'socio-political limitation' constituting a disability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the statutory definition of disability is restricted to physical and mental conditions.

The Court also declined to hear a new constitutional challenge to the Code under s. 15(1) of the Charter, as it was not raised before the Tribunal and the interests of justice did not warrant an exception.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the contracting out of a 'locating function' previously performed by an Inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the locating function constituted 'work' under the collective agreement.

The court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's remedy was reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to award damages as an incentive for compliance, calculated based on the value of the work, was deemed reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn its appeal of a decision by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The appellant sought the adjournment pending the outcome of an unrelated judicial review application by another licensee challenging the Board's institutional impartiality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment could prejudice the respondent and delay the resolution of four-year-old allegations.

Crucially, the court noted that the appellant had never raised the issue of bias in its own case and declined to amend its Notice of Appeal to do so.

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

The Board found the appellant contributed to his injuries by participating in illegal drug-related activities.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by admitting hearsay evidence from a police officer without adequate prior notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board is permitted to admit hearsay evidence and the appellant received sufficient notice of the allegations to satisfy the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario convicting it of infractions under the Liquor Licence Act, including permitting drunkenness, selling liquor to an intoxicated person, and overcrowding a patio.

The appellant argued there was a breach of natural justice due to delayed notice, that the Board misapprehended evidence, and that the defence of necessity applied to the overcrowding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no unreasonable delay in notice, no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence, and that the defence of necessity could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

The OMB had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to award costs after a licence application for aggregate removal and the subsequent ministerial referral were withdrawn.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the OMB correctly determined that under the Aggregate Resources Act, its jurisdiction was limited to the issues specified in the referral and it had no authority to review the pre-referral process or award costs in these circumstances.

The City of Toronto and Kingsway Residents Against Poor Planning brought motions for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving a zoning by-law amendment for a seven/eight-storey development.

The applicants argued the Board erred in law by applying the repealed Etobicoke Official Plan rather than the City's in-force Official Plan, relying on the 'Clergy Principle'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding the Board committed no error of law and properly exercised its discretion in weighing the evidence and applying the Clergy Principle.