Administrative Law - ODC

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal decision barring their civil action for a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was struck by a dump truck driven by a co-worker while walking back from a personal bank errand during his workday.

The Tribunal found the applicant was in the course of employment because he was required to carry and answer a work-issued cell phone during his break, thereby retaining employer control.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its policies and the resulting decision were reasonable and owed deference.

The applicants, who are neighbours of the respondent property owner, sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances.

Following legislative amendments that removed third-party appeal rights to the local appeal body, the applicants argued they had public interest standing to seek judicial review and alleged procedural unfairness and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing, were afforded adequate procedural fairness, and that the Committee's reasons were sufficient when read in context.

The applicant, a licensed paralegal, brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that he is authorized to process and file immigration applications under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) maintained that By-Law 4 restricts paralegals to providing legal services only in connection with proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LSO's interpretation of By-Law 4 was correct, that the by-law does not conflict with the IRPA under the federal paramountcy doctrine, and that the restriction does not violate section 7 of the Charter.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.

The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.

The appellants, two tenants in a residential property, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member breached the duty of procedural fairness by excluding each tenant from portions of the virtual hearing where relevant evidence was given, and then relying on that evidence in the decisions.

The appeals were allowed and the matters remitted to the Board for new hearings before a different member.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting its practice of not providing reasons for such decisions.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the responding developer, payable in monthly installments.

The Applicants sought judicial review of Ontario's Mathematics Proficiency Test (MPT), a standardized test required for teacher certification.

They argued the MPT violated s. 15 of the Charter by having a disproportionate adverse impact on racialized teacher candidates.

The Divisional Court found that the MPT infringed s. 15, as statistical evidence showed significant disparities in success rates for Black and Indigenous candidates.

The Court further held that the infringement could not be justified under s. 1, as the Respondent failed to show the MPT minimally impaired the rights of racialized candidates, given the availability of less impairing alternatives like requiring math courses in Bachelor of Education programs.

The legislative provisions creating the MPT were declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The media applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision in a police disciplinary hearing to impose a publication ban on a video exhibit and subsequently allow the exhibit to be withdrawn from the record.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to apply the proper Dagenais-Mentuck test before granting the ban and by allowing the exhibit to be withdrawn when the media sought to challenge it.

The Court set aside the publication ban and the withdrawal order, directing that the video be made public with the victim's name redacted.

The Court also ordered the police service to provide contemporaneous access to exhibits during future hearings in accordance with the open court principle.

The court directed the Registrar to give the applicant notice that it was considering quashing his Notice of Constitutional Question as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the Notice was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior decision, failed to state a proper basis for a constitutional violation, improperly challenged the Charter itself, and was replete with scandalous, abusive, and racist language.

The Notice was quashed, with leave granted to serve a fresh, proper Notice consistent with the court's directions on civility and legal coherence.

The court issued case management directions for an upcoming virtual hearing of an application for judicial review before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The endorsement outlines the procedures for the Zoom video conference, attire requirements, and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums via a password-protected drop box.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory evidentiary ruling regarding settlement privilege in one of 11 test cases concerning employee benefits fraud.

The parties had agreed that the ruling in this test case would apply to the other ten.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the agreement to apply the ruling across test cases did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the fragmentation of the administrative process.

The court emphasized that labour arbitration cases should generally be decided finally before judicial review is sought.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment revoking their authority for a wind farm project.

Three procedural motions were brought: CanWEA sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court, the Landowners sought leave to intervene as parties, and the respondent moved to strike fresh evidence filed by the applicants.

The court granted CanWEA leave to intervene, denied the Landowners leave to intervene without prejudice to their right to bring a separate application, and adjourned the motion to strike evidence to the panel hearing the underlying application.

The Applicant, MPAC, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted three employees a portion of an enhanced severance payment.

The employees were originally temporary employees who later became non-temporary.

MPAC argued the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with a prior award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the Letter of Understanding was reasonable and consistent with the express wording of the agreement.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of its employees, pending judicial review.

The employer argued it would suffer irreparable harm by being forced to choose between pursuing judicial review or complying with its obligation to bargain in good faith, and by expending unrecoverable resources on collective bargaining.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the employer could bargain in good faith while reserving its rights pending judicial review, and that mutual, unremarkable process costs do not constitute irreparable harm.

VIA Rail appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the property tax assessment of the Ottawa railway station for the years 2009 to 2012.

VIA argued that because its national passenger railway service operates at a loss, the station suffers from 100% economic obsolescence and should be assessed at a nominal value.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision to assess the property using the replacement cost method less depreciation, finding that the Board reasonably concluded there was no empirical evidence to support 100% economic obsolescence given the station's ongoing use and value as a railway facility.

The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's refusal to process their application to close and purchase an unopened road allowance abutting their waterfront property.

The applicants alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, claiming the municipality favoured their neighbours' competing application and failed to prevent unauthorized alterations to the land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the municipality's decision to refuse the sale until the competing interests of all abutting owners were resolved was reasonable.

The court concluded there was no legal right to compel the municipality to sell the road allowance and found no evidence of bad faith.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint against his union without a full hearing.

The applicant alleged the union failed to give him adequate notice of a grievance that ultimately displaced him from his permanent custodian position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by deciding the matter on written submissions, and that its conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was reasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a one-year demotion in rank for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable because it gave too much weight to a 10-year-old disciplinary record and failed to consider the economic impact on his pension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably considered the gap in the disciplinary record and that the pension issue was inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal without an evidentiary record.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted four officers.

He argued the Commission failed to consider the duty to accommodate his alleged disabilities, including alcohol addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that his conditions rendered him unable to perform his essential duties, and concluded the penalty of dismissal was reasonable.

The City of London sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that redivided the city's ward boundaries into 14 wards following an elector petition.

The City argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively altering the composition of city council, a power reserved for the municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, as the Board had explicit statutory authority to redivide wards despite any other Act, and did not explicitly order a change to the number of councillors per ward.