Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her after a cooking fire caused extensive damage to the residential complex.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence that the landlord illegally locked her out of the unit after repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to permit evidence of the alleged lockout prevented it from considering all circumstances as required by section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Board.

The moving parties brought motions to quash part of an application for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction and to strike out certain expert evidence.

The underlying application challenged a decision by the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the Abitibi River Water Management Plan and sought a declaration that the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act regime is unconstitutional for failing to trigger the duty to consult.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to hear the broad constitutional challenge and transferred that portion of the application to the Superior Court.

The motion to strike evidence was adjourned to the panel hearing the judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal's Appeal Division, which upheld a finding that he failed to cooperate with Law Society investigations between July 2023 and January 2024.

The appellant argued that the underlying decisions made factual errors and sought to introduce fresh evidence showing the investigations were eventually closed with a note thanking him for his cooperation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant's responses during the relevant period were neither substantive nor complete.

The fresh evidence was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to a later time period.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) which concluded that the Ottawa Police Service adequately investigated his complaint against two police officers.

The applicant alleged the officers were rude and hung up on him when he called for assistance regarding his former physician.

LECA found the investigation adequate and the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the LECA decision reasonable and rejecting the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

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

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order that he complete a specified continuing education or remediation program and undergo practice monitoring.

The order arose from a complaint regarding the installation of video cameras in his dental office and concerns about patient privacy and informed consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Board to uphold the disposition given the inadequacy of the applicant's patient consent forms and signage, even though the new cameras were not yet operational.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits and dismissing his bad faith claim against the insurer.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the application but dismissed it on the merits, finding the LAT's conclusions regarding insufficient medical evidence and procedural choices were reasonable.

The court also held that punitive damages are unavailable on judicial review of LAT decisions.

The application was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the insurer.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's orders for unpaid wages to the individual respondents.

The applicant argued the respondents were never employees and raised issues of procedural fairness regarding witness coaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably relied on documentary evidence due to credibility issues on both sides, and held there was no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings or its failure to address an alternative argument not raised before it.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) finding that two OPP officers committed discreditable conduct during a sexual assault investigation.

The IPRD had concluded that assigning an officer with a perceived association to a specific detachment created a potential conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the IPRD's decision, finding it unreasonable because the IPRD applied a subjective standard based on the complainant's perception rather than the required objective standard of a reasonable member of the community.

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 appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision denying her an extension of time to request a review of an order finding her jointly liable for rent arrears.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she received no notice of the original LTB hearing and only learned of the order months later when served with a civil claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LTB's failure to address the central issue of procedural fairness in its reasons constituted an error of law.

The matter was remitted to the LTB to determine whether the appellant was accorded natural justice.

The applicant, a mortgagee who sold a newly constructed home under power of sale, sought judicial review of Tarion's decision that it was a 'vendor' responsible for statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding Tarion's finding that a mortgagee selling under power of sale is a vendor, relying on established precedent.

The court also rejected arguments that the home was sold 'as-is', noting the Act prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and declined to consider new arguments not raised before Tarion.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him from his basement apartment so the landlords' daughter could occupy the unit.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused a further adjournment after his lawyer withdrew, and that the eviction was in bad faith and part of a harassment campaign involving the RCMP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant another adjournment given the history of delays, and holding that the tenant's other arguments raised questions of fact rather than questions of law.

The applicant, an adjunct professor, sought judicial review of the respondent university's decision not to proceed with her complaint regarding an open letter signed by students concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The university had appointed an external reviewer who concluded the students did not breach the student code of conduct.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to decline to hear the judicial review application, finding that adequate alternative forums, such as a grievance under the collective agreement or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, were more appropriate to address the applicant's concerns.

The appellant appealed a Property Standards Order requiring her to remove interior LED lighting that spilled onto her driveway and into a neighbour's home, causing a nuisance.

The City relied on the 'exterior lighting' provision of its Property Standards By-law.

The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the by-law's exterior lighting provisions apply to any lighting that primarily or significantly impacts the exterior, regardless of the physical location of the electrical source.

The appeal was dismissed and the Order to Comply was confirmed.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a conciliation decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation, which found that 14 construction items in a condominium's common elements breached statutory warranties and that the conciliation was chargeable to the builder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld Tarion's findings.

The court found that Tarion reasonably relied on its construction performance guidelines and the Building Code in assessing the defects, including water leakage in the garage roof slab and tenting of a waterproofing membrane.

The court also upheld Tarion's determination that the conciliation was chargeable, as the builder's settlement offers did not meet the requirements for an exception.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Governors to remove him from his position for adequate cause.

The removal followed findings that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable student, hired another student with whom he had a sexual relationship without disclosing the conflict of interest, and used a dating website to flirt with an undergraduate student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the decision to remove the applicant was reasonable, intelligible, and justified given the serious breach of trust and abuse of power.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of two decisions made by Superior Court judges.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 indicating the application appeared to be an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of Superior Court judges.

The applicant argued that her Charter claims superseded statutory jurisdictional limits.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the Charter does not expand the statutory limits of the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.

The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.

The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.

The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 80 hours' forfeited pay.

The misconduct stemmed from a $50 anonymous donation the applicant made to the 'Freedom Convoy' protests while on unpaid leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude the protests were illegal and that the limitation on the applicant's freedom of expression was proportionate to the statutory objectives of maintaining effective policing.

The court also upheld the Commission's refusal to hear a new abuse of process argument on appeal.