Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal breached procedural fairness in three ways: relying on the untested evidence of the respondent's expert who did not re-attend for cross-examination, deciding the issue of causation without notice when it was not in dispute, and relying on documents not in evidence that the appellant had no opportunity to address.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant, OHIP, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which granted the respondent funding for a vaginoplasty without penectomy in Texas.

OHIP argued the procedure was not a specifically listed insured service and was experimental.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the plain reading of the Schedule of Benefits lists vaginoplasty and penectomy as separate procedures, and that interpreting the schedule to require a penectomy would be inconsistent with the WPATH Standards of Care and Charter values.

The court also declined to allow OHIP to raise a new argument on appeal regarding out-of-country funding criteria.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) declining to add a claim for punitive damages to a dispute over Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claims.

Relying on its concurrent decision in Keulen v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Divisional Court held that the LAT does not have the authority to award punitive damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent insurer.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its sole director, moved for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking their registrations pending appeal.

The Tribunal had found the appellants breached multiple conditions of a prior consent order, including failing to disclose material facts to consumers and trading without required education.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the appellants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the public interest in consumer protection.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board's decision denying her request to make an oral presentation at a board meeting regarding the flying of the pride flag and transgender issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an egregious and unexplained 21-month delay in perfecting the application.

In the alternative, the court found the board's decision was reasonable, as the proposed presentation contradicted the board's statutory duties to promote an inclusive school climate, and the board minimally impaired the applicant's freedom of expression by offering to distribute her presentation in written form.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a renewal collective agreement for employees of a long-term care home.

The union argued that the wage adjustments awarded were unreasonable and that the arbitration board failed to provide adequate reasons, placed too much reliance on a master agreement, and failed to properly apply the statutory criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was reasonable, adequately explained, and fell within the range of acceptable outcomes given the legislative nature of interest arbitration and the deference owed to such awards.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal council decision upholding a repair order issued against her for dumping sand on her shoreline property in contravention of a site alteration by-law.

The applicant argued that the alterations were historical, fell under provincial jurisdiction, and that the council breached procedural fairness by not providing written reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Township had concurrent jurisdiction, the decision was reasonable based on the evidence of by-law contravention, and the council's process met the requirements of procedural fairness for an administrative municipal decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by a coworker and subsequently terminated from his temporary assignment, claiming discrimination on various grounds.

The HRTO dismissed the application because the applicant failed to allege any nexus between a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and the alleged discriminatory conduct.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision reasonable and concluded there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the HRTO acted in accordance with its rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying a request to adjourn a scheduled hearing.

The appellant argued the appeal automatically stayed the LAT proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1, confirming it has no jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from the LAT.

The court noted the dismissal was without prejudice to an application for judicial review but declined to grant an interim stay of the LAT hearing.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a finding of professional misconduct for failing to reply promptly and completely to Law Society communications.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, received ineffective assistance from duty counsel, and that the adjudicator made improper credibility findings and misapplied the test for misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings, and concluding that the appellant had waived any procedural fairness concerns by electing to proceed with the hearing rather than seeking an adjournment.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that it lacked just cause to dismiss a Black employee and that the dismissal was tainted by anti-Black racism.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, deferring to the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The Court upheld the Board's reliance on expert evidence regarding implicit bias and circumstantial evidence to conclude that race was a factor in the termination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant sought to appeal and judicially review two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her application for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had stayed her application and subsequently dismissed it because she refused to attend a reasonably necessary section 44 psychiatric insurer examination.

The Divisional Court heard the judicial review and appeal concurrently.

The court found the LAT's decisions were reasonable, as the insurer had made efforts to accommodate the appellant's requests for a virtual assessment with a female clinician, but the appellant still refused to attend.

Finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness, the court dismissed both the appeal and the application for judicial review.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award finding it had violated a collective agreement by ceasing to produce engine blocks at its Windsor plant.

The arbitrator had interpreted a 'sole source' clause in a Memorandum of Settlement, concluding the employer could not move the work simply because production volumes fell below projections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable, properly considered the context of the negotiations, and did not violate the parol evidence rule.

The self-represented moving party requested a short adjournment of his motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal due to technical challenges, illness, and the need to cross-examine a responding witness.

The Ontario Land Tribunal and the City of Toronto took no position, while the respondent developer opposed the request.

The court granted the adjournment on peremptory terms, setting a schedule for cross-examination and the filing of materials.

The applicant, Canada Christian College, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to recommend proclamation of legislative amendments that would grant it university status and expanded degree-granting authority.

The Minister had referred the applicant's request to the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, which concluded the applicant was not ready for the changes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's recommendations were not reviewable, the Minister's referral was intra vires the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, and the Minister's decision not to recommend proclamation was a legislative act not subject to procedural fairness and was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for a back injury following a workplace fall.

The Tribunal had found the fall was not a significant contributing factor to the injury, relying heavily on the applicant's delay in seeking medical treatment and reporting pain.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for uncontradicted medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician and physiotherapist.

The Court granted the application, set aside the decision, and, given the inevitable outcome and lengthy delay, declared the applicant entitled to benefits under s. 13(1) of the WSIA, remitting the matter only for the assessment of those benefits.

The tenants appealed from interlocutory orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that their notice of appeal automatically stayed the proceedings, including a review of an eviction order.

The Divisional Court held that section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not confer a right of appeal from an interlocutory order, and therefore the appeal did not stay the proceedings.

The court also found that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness, as they deliberately chose not to attend the review hearing.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with her complaint against members of the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the police failed to properly investigate her reports of being followed and harassed, and discriminated against her by referring to her as an 'Emotionally Disturbed Person' (EDP) in their reports.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint, concluding it was not in the public interest to proceed as an investigation was unlikely to establish misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decision reasonable.

The court noted that classifying an individual as EDP is not inherently discriminatory, and additional police reports filed on consent demonstrated that the police had in fact investigated the applicant's concerns.