Administrative Law - ODC

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing and indicated an expectation that the hearing would proceed by Zoom.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, directing that the rescheduled hearing proceed by Zoom and be peremptory to the appellant.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant, a Black municipal councillor, alleged he was subjected to racial profiling by a police officer.

After a Police Services Act (PSA) disciplinary hearing cleared the officer of misconduct, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed the applicant's human rights complaint under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the matter had been appropriately dealt with.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply or justify its departure from established Supreme Court of Canada and HRTO jurisprudence, which holds that it is generally unfair to use a PSA proceeding to bar a human rights complaint due to differences in purpose, standard of proof, and available remedies.

The HRTO decisions were set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicants sought judicial review and appealed decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).

The IPC had found that ransomware attacks encrypting the applicants' data containers constituted an unauthorized 'use' and 'loss' of personal information, triggering statutory duties to notify affected individuals under PHIPA and the CYFSA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications and appeal, holding that the IPC's interpretation was reasonable and purposive.

The court found that the encryption of data, which made it temporarily unavailable, amounted to 'handling' or 'dealing with' the information, thereby constituting an unauthorized use that required notification regardless of whether the data was actually viewed or exfiltrated.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and a related costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the City of Vaughan and $5,000 to the other responding parties.

The appellant, a Registered Practical Nurse, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding she committed professional misconduct by submitting false insurance claims to her employer's benefits plan.

The Committee had ordered a six-month suspension and other penalties.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court dismissed as the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing and constituted a collateral attack.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual and credibility findings, and held the penalty was not clearly unfit.

The applicant union sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding that it had abandoned its bargaining rights for certain construction employees, thereby allowing a rival union's certification application to proceed.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably departed from precedent by failing to focus on the union's intention to abandon its rights and by ignoring its 2021 negotiating efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board reasonably applied established principles, properly assessed the objective evidence of the applicant's prolonged inactivity, and correctly concluded that the bargaining rights had been abandoned by 2020 and could not be revived by subsequent conduct.

The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.

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

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they committed breaches of Ontario securities law, including securities fraud, illegal distribution, and unregistered trading, and imposing sanctions including disgorgement and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Tribunal made palpable and overriding errors of fact and erred in law in its interpretation of the disgorgement remedy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's factual findings were amply supported by the evidence and its interpretation of the disgorgement remedy was correct and within its broad public interest discretion.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request to stay a decision of the Animal Care Review Board.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from the applicant's residence and issued a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the stay motion was moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment.

The panel also upheld the motion judge's finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

Two teachers' unions sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding collective bargaining with the Crown.

The OLRB had dismissed OSSTF's claim of bad faith bargaining, finding the Crown did not misrepresent its position on grid movement grievances.

The OLRB upheld ETFO's claim of bad faith bargaining but declined to award monetary damages, instead ordering a declaration and notice to members.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed both applications, finding the OLRB's factual findings, inferences, and remedial choices were logical, transparent, and entitled to deference given its labour relations expertise.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the school board's decision finding he breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to in camera meetings and alleged bias of the Chair, and that the decision unreasonably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness, the in camera meetings were statutorily permitted due to related litigation, and the board reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter rights with its statutory obligations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board's decision to stop her presentation at a public meeting.

The applicant had been approved to speak about transparency in a library review process but digressed to critique specific books discussing gender identity.

The chair stopped her presentation on the basis that it could violate human rights legislation and board policies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, did not breach procedural fairness, and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the board reasonably balanced the applicant's freedom of expression with its statutory objectives and policies regarding equity and inclusion.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City's decision to reject an advertisement for transit vehicles.

The City conceded that it failed to provide adequate reasons balancing the applicants' right to freedom of expression against its statutory objectives, as required by the Doré/Loyola framework.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter back to the City for proper consideration and to provide adequate reasons.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against an OPP inspector.

The complaint alleged the inspector failed to properly investigate the applicant's earlier complaint regarding the seizure of his boat's mooring anchor and a subsequent mischief charge.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD's decision not to proceed with the complaint was reasonable and within its statutory discretion.

The court also held that the OIPRD's internal review process met the required duty of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipality's decision to invoice him $9,445.44 for fire department response costs after he started an open-air fire on his property.

The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to a provincial offence for violating the burning by-law and was fined $250.

He argued the invoice decision lacked procedural fairness and was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the informal process provided was procedurally fair given the emergency context and statutory scheme, and that the decision to issue the invoice was reasonable and transparent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) dismissing their application for minor variances.

Concurrently, the moving parties sought an internal review of the decision under TLAB's rules, and the TLAB Chair directed that a review of ten of the twelve variances proceed.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal premature, as the administrative decision-making process had not ended.

To prevent fragmentation and misallocation of resources, the court adjourned the motion pending the final determination of the TLAB review process.

The moving party Justice of the Peace brought a motion to quash the responding party's Notice of Application for Judicial Review.

The responding party sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Justice of the Peace to lay an information against a municipal prosecutor under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

Under s. 142(4) of the Provincial Offences Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act does not apply, and s. 140(1) provides that such relief must be sought in the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal revoking his mortgage broker licence.

The Tribunal found him unsuitable to remain licensed after he registered mortgages based on forged signatures without verifying the identity or consent of the client's wife.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on misconduct but found the Tribunal failed to adequately consider lesser penalties than revocation, especially given the appellant's lack of prior disciplinary record.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the penalty.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the board of directors of a private trailer park association to bar their son from the park.

The respondent association brought a motion to dismiss the application on jurisdictional grounds.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the association is a private corporation and its board does not exercise any statutory power.

Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedures Act to judicially review the board's decision.