Administrative Law - ODC

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order finding it had given a bad faith notice of termination and imposing a $10,000 administrative fine.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the landlord and tenants settled their dispute and agreed to set aside the Board's order.

The Board sought standing to participate in the appeal to defend the administrative fine.

The Divisional Court held that the Board could make submissions regarding the nature and purpose of administrative fines, balancing the need for fully-informed adjudication against maintaining tribunal impartiality.

On the merits, the court upheld the $10,000 fine, finding it served a public protection purpose to deter future violations and was not based on an error of law.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance over a school principal's search of a classroom laptop.

Two teachers had maintained a private log documenting their complaints about colleagues on a personal Google account accessed via the school computer.

The principal discovered the log when he touched the mousepad of the open laptop after hours.

The arbitrator found the teachers had a diminished expectation of privacy and the principal had reasonable cause to search under his duty to maintain order under the Education Act.

The Divisional Court (majority) dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the application, finding the search disproportionately impaired the teachers' section 8 Charter rights.

The self-represented tenants appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that dismissed their applications for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The Board had found the tenants deliberately used the wrong form (T2 instead of T6) to characterize maintenance issues as substantial interference.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Board's findings regarding the forms and its procedural decisions were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's decision to convert an oral hearing into a written one to accommodate the tenants' language barriers.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her former employer, a housing cooperative, engaged in reprisals against her for enforcing her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions, including extending her probation and terminating her employment, were motivated by her health and safety complaints.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's findings of fact and legal analysis were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that found it breached capacity limits under the Liquor Licence Act and imposed a 15-day licence suspension.

The appellant conceded its patio was overcrowded but argued the Tribunal erred in law regarding the extent of the breach, reasons, fairness, and sanction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, supported by reasons, and the 15-day suspension appropriate given previous similar infractions.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, and revoking his license.

The Divisional Court upheld findings that he removed patients' clothing without warning and breached a chaperone order.

However, the Court quashed the finding of sexual abuse regarding Patient B due to a flawed credibility assessment and a reversal of the burden of proof.

The Court also quashed a finding of professional misconduct regarding abdominal contact with two other patients because it was an unpleaded allegation.

Finally, the Court held that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Protecting Patients Act, 2017 did not apply retrospectively.

The penalty was substituted with a suspension for the period already served.

The applicant employee was terminated for theft of time.

His union grieved the termination, but the arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The union did not seek judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review on his own behalf.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the general rule of union exclusivity applied.

Although the collective agreement gave the employee the right to pursue arbitration independently, he did not exercise that right, and therefore could not claim standing under the exceptional circumstances doctrine.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.

The appellant, a professional engineer, appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in vexatious communications with Ministry of Transportation engineers regarding bridge design, while dismissing allegations of incompetence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Committee's decisions on both liability and penalty were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed, with a minor modification to the timeline for completing the Professional Practice Examination.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding contents and additional living expenses following a residential fire.

During the hearing, the respondent insurer conceded it would pay the contents award without requiring a release, and agreed the applicants could litigate the interpretation of the additional living expenses coverage in court without being bound by the umpire's nil appraisal.

Given these concessions, the Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board not to proceed with a review of his complaint against his niece, a physician.

The Board had found the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it arose from ongoing family litigation and was essentially the same as a previous complaint that had been dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that the appellant was not financially eligible for ODSP income support due to her receipt of long-term disability insurance benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision involved a question of mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the ODSPA, and that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada denying his request to write the pharmacist qualification examination for a fifth time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the letter was not a reviewable decision but merely a statement of the existing rule limiting attempts.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the Act creating the Board and the rule limiting examination attempts were ultra vires, noting that the Board does not regulate the profession but merely administers an examination that provincial licensing bodies may use.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for a sealing order regarding portions of its record of proceedings in an application for judicial review.

The applicant, acting in person, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking an adjournment, a public trial, and written responses from the respondents.

The Divisional Court granted the Board's motion to protect the integrity of its non-disclosure orders and dismissed the applicant's cross-motion, noting the procedural requirements of judicial review.

The applicant, a tobacco manufacturer, challenged the Minister of Finance's demand for security under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The applicant argued that because its products were sold exclusively to on-reserve First Nations retailers and for export, they were not subject to Ontario tax, and thus no security could be demanded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the plain language of s. 12(2)(f.1) of the Act requires the Minister to demand security for unmarked fine cut tobacco as if it were destined for taxable sale, to protect against the risk of product diversion.

The court also found the Minister's decision to reduce the required security amount was reasonable.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council regarding his inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an unexplained 18-month delay in bringing the proceeding.

The court also considered the merits, finding no procedural unfairness in the complaint or investigation process, and rejecting the applicant's claim of ineffective counsel, noting there is no right to effective counsel in civil proceedings.

The Independent Police Review Director brought a motion to quash a summons to witness issued to an investigator and for a declaration that counsel to the OIPRD was not required to bring the investigative file to her cross-examination.

The underlying application for judicial review sought to defer interviews of two police officers facing criminal charges until after their criminal trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence sought from the investigator and the investigative file was not relevant or necessary for the judicial review application, as it exceeded the narrow focus of the proceeding.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, raising issues regarding whether an occupant was a tenant and whether there was a deemed assignment of the tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the determination of whether the occupant was a tenant was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the Board's finding that the landlord failed to apply for eviction within 60 days of discovering the unauthorized occupancy, resulting in a deemed assignment under s. 104(4), was a finding of fact that could not be challenged.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision ordering its Chief Building Official to issue building permits for sun rooms using sandwich panels and to evaluate the applicant's load test data.

The City argued that section 9(1) of the Building Code Act granted the official discretion to refuse to evaluate test results if the testing method was not specified in the Building Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 9(1) does not grant discretion to defeat applications relying on design methods authorized in the Building Code, such as load testing.

The court also upheld the motions judge's factual finding that the submitted data was adequate and dismissed the appeal on costs.

The appellants appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects.

They argued they were denied a fair hearing because the independent legal counsel retained to advise the Committee effectively took over the conduct of the hearing.

The Divisional Court agreed, noting numerous instances where the Committee's counsel interrupted the appellants' counsel, purported to speak for the Committee, and engaged in heated arguments.

The findings of guilt were set aside and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.