Administrative Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that required it to pay the proceeds of a vehicle sale into court as a condition of an adjournment.

The Divisional Court declined to grant relief, finding that the applicant's conduct in seeking judicial review was an unnecessary step that delayed the resolution of the underlying motion on its merits.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed that his complaints of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct against a police officer were unsubstantiated.

The Divisional Court found the Director's decision unreasonable because it relied on a fundamental misapprehension of evidence regarding the timeline of the alleged assault and failed to address the applicant's central argument that video evidence proved the officer had lied.

The application was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Complaints Director for further review.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that upheld the dismissal of his application for failing to attend the hearing.

The tenant had requested an adjournment due to a scheduled rotator cuff surgery and provided medical letters, including one from his treating psychiatrist stating he would be unable to participate in the hearing process.

The LTB denied the adjournment, finding the medical opinion speculative, and proceeded in the tenant's absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB superficially rejected the medical evidence and denied the tenant procedural fairness by depriving him of an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that declined to compress the wage grid for registered nurses and nurse practitioners.

The union argued the existing grid was discriminatory and that correcting it was exempt from the 1% compensation cap under Bill 124.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the interest arbitration process was not the appropriate forum to make the necessary adjudicative findings of specific Human Rights Code breaches by 131 separate employers, nor to usurp the ongoing pay equity process.

The applicant police officer sought a stay of his dismissal from the police service pending judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision that confirmed his termination for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not favor the applicant.

The court noted that the applicant's losses were primarily financial and could be remedied with back pay if his judicial review application succeeded, whereas granting routine stays would contravene legislative policy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a non-profit organization suspending him from its executive committee.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant, the court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was a private charitable organization, not a state decision-maker, and therefore its decisions were not subject to judicial review or the Charter.

The appellant appealed three orders dismissing his motions to set aside a previous order that upheld the revocation of his building permit, and a related costs order.

The appellant had attempted to rely on a purported zoning map to reinstate his permit, which the motion judge found was not genuine.

He also argued that his property had legal nonconforming use status, which the motion judge rejected as res judicata and an extraordinary intensification of use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings, upholding the application of res judicata, and affirming the full indemnity costs award due to the appellant's use of a fraudulent document.

The applicants, including the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, brought applications for judicial review challenging the Ontario government's decision to withdraw the 2015 sex education curriculum and replace it with the 2010 curriculum.

They argued the directive infringed teachers' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and students' rights under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court granted the applicants public interest standing but dismissed the applications on the merits.

The court found no infringement of s. 2(b) because teachers remained free to address topics from the 2015 curriculum, and no infringement of ss. 7 or 15(1) because the 2010 curriculum did not inherently deprive students of security of the person or substantively discriminate against protected groups.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee dismissing allegations of patient abuse against a registered nurse.

The allegations involved the nurse allegedly slapping a psychiatric patient across the face.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations after finding the evidence of the two complaining nurses to be inconsistent and not credible, while finding the respondent nurse's denials to be plausible.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding that the credibility assessments and factual findings were defensible and supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for its electricians.

The applicant challenged the Board's use of a 'bright line' test to determine the bargaining unit based on employees working on a Saturday filing date, the Board's finding that a union organizer's conduct did not violate s. 76 of the Labour Relations Act, and the wording of the ballot question.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications and mood stabilizers.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence to uphold the finding and that his procedural fairness rights were infringed when he represented himself at the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's own testimony corroborated the treating physician's evidence that he did not believe he had a mental illness, rendering him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court also found that the Board properly followed its policy guidelines for unrepresented litigants and safeguarded the appellant's procedural fairness rights.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed its request for an increase in its chicken processing quota.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the date of rebasing was supported by evidence and reasonable.

The Court also held that the applicant could not rely on a contract it had expressly abandoned before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not required to provide reasons for declining to depart from its usual policies.

The Wabauskang First Nation applied for judicial review of a decision by the Director of Mine Rehabilitation acknowledging a Production Closure Plan submitted by Rubicon Minerals Corporation for a gold mining project.

The First Nation argued that Ontario failed to fulfill its duty to consult and accommodate and improperly delegated this duty to the mining company.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Ontario's assessment of the potential claims was reasonable, that it fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate, and that it only delegated procedural aspects of the consultation to the proponent while retaining ultimate legal responsibility.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of disability by terminating her after she requested medical leave for breast cancer treatment.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and $2,640 in special damages.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Tribunal's factual findings or damages assessment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision dismissing its appeal against the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment (OPA 77) without a hearing.

The applicant argued the OMB erred by reviewing evidence on the motion to dismiss, akin to a summary judgment motion, rather than assuming the facts in the notice of appeal were true.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the OMB's procedure was reasonable and necessary to screen out appeals with no chance of success.

The court also found no error in the OMB's conclusion that the applicant's environmental and storm water management concerns could not form a land use planning basis to refuse OPA 77 at this stage.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant, a chiropractor, brought an application to set aside an Assistant Registrar's order that dismissed his appeal of a $128,000 costs award for delay.

The court applied the three-part test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, finding that the appellant had a bona fide continuing intention to appeal and that the delay was inconsequential.

The respondent conceded the merits of the appeal.

The application was granted, and the dismissal order was set aside subject to conditions including the payment of previous costs orders and the perfection of the appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding the discharge of an employee.

The Board had found that the employee's sale of used parts and retention of the proceeds was based on a misunderstanding of workplace practice, rather than willful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's conclusions were supported by the evidence before it.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision which found her claim for statutory accident benefits was statute-barred.

The Director's Delegate had concluded that the insurer's notice of refusal, while containing technical defects and incorrect reasons, was 'substantially clear' and triggered the limitation period under s. 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that a notice of refusal must be strictly clear and unequivocal, and must provide the correct reasons for refusal to trigger the limitation period.

The court found that the Director's Delegate erred in law by applying a 'substantially clear' standard.