Administrative Law - ODC

The Law Society of Ontario requested the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to review a decision not to investigate a complaint.

The applicant submitted he was seeking to quash the decision and have it redone, not specifically requesting an investigation.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1, finding that while there may be a valid jurisdiction issue, it should be raised and determined within the normal course of the application rather than through the summary Rule 2.1 process.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated November 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to joint submissions, the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The applicants, a horse owner and trainer, sought judicial review of a Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP) decision upholding penalties for their horse testing above the permitted threshold for total carbon dioxide (TCO2).

They argued they were denied procedural fairness regarding disclosure of testing laboratory records, that the HRAP decision was unreasonable, and that the rule establishing the TCO2 threshold was ultra vires.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness given the HRAP's efforts to mitigate late disclosure, concluding the HRAP's reliance on the testing evidence was reasonable, and holding that the rule was within the Registrar's statutory mandate to uphold the integrity of horse racing.

The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.

The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.

The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.

The applicants sought to commence an application for judicial review of three decisions of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding their late father's medical treatment.

The request was improperly formatted, named incorrect parties, and sought relief beyond the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.

Despite being given opportunities to correct the defects, the applicants refused.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, directing the registrar to notify the applicants that the court is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome.

The respondent municipality brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant, a newly formed corporation seeking judicial review of a municipal resolution to sell a golf course.

The applicant conceded it had insufficient assets but argued it had a good chance of success and was engaged in public interest litigation.

The court found the applicant did not have a good chance of success on its procedural, notice, or bias arguments, and that the matter was not public interest litigation.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to post $10,000 as security for costs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances filed on behalf of an employee who was placed on indefinite layoff.

The employee, a cleaner, was banned from the work site by the third-party property owner.

The employer, having no other work for the employee under the single-site collective agreement, laid her off rather than terminating her for just cause.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov and found that the arbitrator's decision was internally coherent and consistent with established labour jurisprudence regarding third-party site bans.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision made by the Normal Farm Practices and Protection Board regarding its internal processes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interim orders is only available in exceptional circumstances to prevent fragmentation and piecemeal proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the board's final decision.

Costs were awarded to the respondent receiver in the fixed amount of $2,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director dismissing his complaint against the police.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of a multi-year organized crime operation involving the police and government agencies, but refused to provide particulars of specific police misconduct.

The Director dismissed the complaint as frivolous and lacking an objective air of reality.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's decision was reasonable and the process was fair, as the complaint contained no specific allegations of police misconduct and lacked objective evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent municipality's refusal to post its anti-abortion advertisement on city buses violated its freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The respondent consented to post the advertisement and did not appear at the hearing.

The Divisional Court found that the Charter applied and the refusal limited the applicant's freedom of expression without a reasonable balancing of statutory objectives.

However, the court declined to issue a formal constitutional declaration due to the lack of an adversarial evidentiary record, instead issuing a consent order requiring the respondent to post the advertisement.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing an adolescent patient in 1979.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, applied a more stringent standard to his evidence, and provided inadequate reasons regarding similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable, there was no unequal scrutiny of evidence, and the Committee clearly explained it did not rely on the similar fact evidence to reach its conclusions.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim suspension order imposed by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee following allegations of sexual abuse and subsequent breaches of a prior monitoring order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness complaints were premature and should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also rejected the applicant's statutory interpretation argument that the entire 58-member committee was required to issue the order, and concluded that the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's demonstrated inability to comply with the monitoring order.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board upholding an eviction notice.

The appellants argued that the Board erred in finding that the evidence of 'V.C.' was irrelevant because he was not an owner and could not have entered into a three-year lease.

They submitted that the definition of 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 includes any person who permits occupancy.

The appellants conceded that the Divisional Court could not grant the damages they sought, and that even if the matter were remitted for a re-hearing, the Board lacked jurisdiction to award those damages.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of revocation of his licence.

The misconduct involved overcharging a family law client, failing to explain irrevocable directions, and failing to keep the client informed.

On appeal, the appellant raised new issues regarding the burden of proof and the sufficiency of the Hearing Panel's reasons.

The Divisional Court allowed the new issues to be raised but dismissed them on the merits, finding that the Hearing Panel did not reverse the burden of proof and that its reasons were sufficient under the Newfoundland Nurses standard.

The court also upheld the global assessment of the lawyer's fees without expert evidence and confirmed the penalty of revocation.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding the revocation of his licence for misappropriating funds from his family's company and his former law firm.

He argued that his absolute discharge from bankruptcy estopped the Law Society from finding he misappropriated funds, and that the panel failed to account for proper disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the Law Society was not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings and the issues were different.

The court also found the panel's factual findings regarding the misappropriation were reasonable.

The applicant, a public interest litigant, sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision but the motion was dismissed as abandoned after a time extension was refused.

The respondents sought costs.

The court held that public interest litigants must adhere to procedural rules and awarded costs to the respondents for the procedural motion.

For the leave motion itself, the court declined to award costs to the municipality, recognizing both parties acted in the public interest, but awarded partial indemnity costs to the private landowner respondents who were forced to participate.

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a 12-month suspension and an indefinite restriction on needling the subclavius muscle.

The misconduct arose after the appellant performed acupuncture on a patient's subclavius muscle, causing a punctured lung (pneumothorax), and subsequently failed to refer the patient to a hospital when she presented with symptoms of the condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's incompetence, failure to maintain professional standards, and disgraceful conduct were reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

The Court also upheld the penalty, noting it was within the reasonable range and justified by the need to protect the public.

The applicant, a full member of the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, brought an application for judicial review to quash a by-law that reduced the number of examination sections required for full membership from five to three.

The applicant argued the by-law was unreasonable, created two categories of full members, and was contrary to the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the enactment of the by-law was a legislative function not amenable to judicial review for reasonableness, the by-law was intra vires the Association's statutory powers, and the court should defer to the Association's expertise in setting professional standards.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a grievance by a social worker (OPSEU member) who claimed permanent status in a Court Support Worker position.

The position had been temporarily vacated by a nurse (ONA member) who took a short-term acting manager role.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he reversed the onus of proof, ignored compelling evidence that the assignment was temporary, and breached natural justice by failing to give notice of the hearing to the ONA.

The arbitrator's decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a new panel.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to reinstate his driver's licence following a suspension for impaired driving.

He argued that the six-month follow-up interview required by the Remedial Measures Program was not authorized by law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that a purposive interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations authorized the three-component program, including the follow-up interview.

Furthermore, the application was moot as the applicant's licence had expired and been suspended for other infractions.