Administrative Law - ODC

The landlord brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had proceeded in the landlord's absence.

The landlord argued the Board erred in finding it had been properly served with notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the validity of notice and due diligence are questions of fact, not law, and therefore cannot be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the tenant.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting her for allegedly threatening a staff member.

The tenant had missed the initial hearing due to a sincere belief that paying a filing fee would resolve the matter, but the LTB denied her request for a review hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that procedural fairness and the broad interpretation of being 'reasonably able to participate' required granting a rehearing on the merits given the tenant's sincere confusion and diligence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry denying it a grant under the Ontario Small Business Support Grant program.

The Ministry determined the applicant was ineligible because its door installation business constituted construction services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Ministry's interpretation of the eligibility criteria was reasonable and did not contravene the Ministry of Revenue Act.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as adequate reasons were provided and the non-disclosure of the assessors' identities was justified.

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

The union argued that the arbitrator's decision to transition the disability income protection plan to the central agreement terms was unreasonable and lacked adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied the replication principle and statutory criteria, and that the brief reasons were adequate given the parties' prior agreement to a bottom-line decision.

The tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed her section 82 application as abandoned and ordered her eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued procedural unfairness because the Board proceeded after she left the virtual hearing, and she disputed the rent arrears calculation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's handling of her departure from the hearing, and holding that the rent calculation was a question of fact outside the court's appellate jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resources' decision to apply an Interim Enforcement Policy, which permits Aboriginal people to hunt and fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, within the 1923 Williams Treaties boundaries.

The Minister brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application of the policy was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is immune from judicial review absent an abuse of process.

The court also held that the policy did not violate the applicants' equality rights under section 15 of the Charter, as it constituted an ameliorative program under section 15(2).

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) to the Divisional Court.

The ARB had classified a condominium unit used as a sign shop by the respondent as commercial rather than industrial under O. Reg. 282/98.

The court found that the ARB's decision was based on findings of fact regarding the specific property and did not raise a question of law of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court.

The court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the ARB's decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash a warrant of seizure and sale issued by the Minister of Revenue.

The warrant was issued more than six years after the tax assessment became binding.

The Divisional Court held that under Rules 60.07(2) and 60.07.1(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Minister was required to obtain leave to issue the warrant.

As no leave was obtained, the warrant was quashed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and dismissing his applications.

At the hearing, the Board granted the landlord's motion to remove the tenant's representative and subsequently denied the tenant's request for an adjournment to obtain new representation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment under the circumstances was arbitrary and constituted a denial of natural justice.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him long-term benefits for depression allegedly caused by a workplace injury.

The applicant argued he was denied natural justice because the Tribunal relied on a hearsay letter from his daughter, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal is permitted to admit hearsay evidence and the applicant had ample notice of the letter.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's conclusion that non-work-related factors outweighed the contribution of the workplace injury was reasonable and supported by ample evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision suspending his racing licenses for ten years and imposing a $20,000 fine for administering a performance-enhancing drug (EPO) to a horse.

The applicant argued his confession to investigators was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the statement was admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and statutory compulsion, and that the common law confession rule and section 7 of the Charter did not apply to these administrative proceedings.

The court also upheld the penalty as reasonable given the need for general deterrence in the horse racing industry.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $15,000 for pain and suffering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained earlier and lacked a necessary affidavit linking the abuse to loss of income.

The appeal on the merits was also dismissed, as the court found no error of law in the Board's exercise of its broad discretion to award compensation.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant applying to the Board to vary the award based on new evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Adoption Services to place their international adoption on hold.

The hold was initiated after the estranged sister of one of the applicants made historic sexual abuse allegations just days before the applicants were scheduled to travel to finalize the adoption.

The Director placed the hold and required a new home study without providing the applicants an opportunity to respond or detailing the allegations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Director breached procedural fairness by failing to give the applicants a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court also found the requirement for a further home study unreasonable given the unchallenged expert evidence refuting the risk.

The Director's decision was quashed and the original approval was reinstated.

The Canadian Medical Protective Association and the Ontario Medical Association brought applications for judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicants argued the OMA was not a 'trade union' under the Act and that the agreement contained confidential third-party information exempt from disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, upholding the Adjudicator's broad interpretation of 'trade union' and finding her conclusion that the information was not 'supplied in confidence' to be reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's decision upholding the Ministry of Natural Resources' disclosure of certain records to a requester.

The applicant argued the records were exempt from disclosure under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential commercial information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's conclusion that the information was negotiated rather than 'supplied' in confidence was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the cancellation of his disability benefits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding he and another individual met the definition of 'spouse' under O. Reg. 222/98, asserting that a mutual written declaration was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no error of law and was entitled to consider surrounding circumstances to determine if a declaration had been made.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury and was granted Future Economic Loss benefits.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board calculated his pre-injury earnings without including his employer's contributions to his union's health and pension plans.

The applicant appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the decision.

The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Tribunal's decision patently unreasonable because it failed to consider the legislative history and the government's explanation for the applicable statutory provisions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent police officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged the officer breached his Charter rights by administering a breath test without proper caution after the appellant was evicted from a park.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Hearing Officer to conclude the breath test was voluntary and the officer's actions in ensuring the safety of the campers and the public did not constitute discreditable conduct.

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

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

Two newspaper reporters applied for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner upholding the refusal by the Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose various police records.

The requested records included the names of all police officers, public complaints data, disciplinary tribunal dockets, and criminal charges against officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Officers' decisions applying exemptions for safety, privacy, and employment-related matters were reasonable and correct.