Administrative Law - ODC

The Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review and an appeal concerning decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The underlying proceedings involve whether cyberattacks that encrypt servers without data exfiltration trigger notification obligations under privacy legislation.

The court granted the motion on consent, finding that the OHA's sector-wide insights and expertise would make a useful contribution to the court's understanding of the operational impacts of privacy and security challenges on health care organizations.

The Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence.

The misconduct related to his failure to report the kidnapping of an acquaintance and his unauthorized use of a police database to provide information to the victim's brother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's decisions to allow video testimony, admit a criminal trial transcript, refuse a stay for delay, and impose the penalty of dismissal.

The Law Society appealed a decision of the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal ordering a new hearing due to a lack of disclosure.

The respondent lawyer, facing professional misconduct allegations related to real estate fraud, sought disclosure of the files of other lawyers involved in the transactions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 49.12 of the Law Society Act does not create a statutory privilege barring disclosure, but rather a confidentiality rule with exceptions for conduct proceedings.

The Court affirmed that the Stinchcombe disclosure regime applies, requiring the Law Society to disclose potentially relevant material from other lawyers' files, subject to resolving any solicitor-client privilege claims.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that determined two policy grievances regarding the employer's Nuclear Resourcing Policy.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's reassignment of employees to available work within their job classification did not violate the job posting provisions of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the arbitrator's interpretation fell within a range of reasonable outcomes, as it followed established arbitral jurisprudence and considered the collective agreement as a whole.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding him liable for unregistered and illegal trading of securities and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commission's findings on liability, concluding it was reasonable to find the appellant engaged in acts furthering trade and received commissions.

However, the court found the Commission erred in its sanctions analysis by misapprehending the timing of a previous ban imposed on the appellant in Alberta.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the trading bans and administrative penalty set aside and remitted to the Commission for a fresh determination.

The appellants brought motions to stay the construction of two wind turbine projects pending their appeals of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions upholding the Renewable Energy Approvals.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Environmental Protection Act to stay the Director's approvals directly, treating the motions as requests for interlocutory injunctions.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellants would not suffer irreparable harm prior to the appeal hearing, as the turbines would not be operational by then.

The motions were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision directing a rehearing of a property tax assessment appeal.

The Divisional Court held that the matter should proceed as an appeal under s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act rather than a judicial review, to preserve the court's gate-keeping function.

Converting the application to an appeal, the court granted leave and allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding there was a procedural fairness violation.

The Board had admitted the landowner's evidence but gave it no weight, which is a matter of evidentiary weight, not procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent transit authority's decision to enter into a contract for diesel multiple units for an air-rail link.

The applicant argued the respondent exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct an electrification feasibility study and improperly accepting ministerial direction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to enter a commercial contract did not constitute a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act as it did not determine any legal rights.

Furthermore, the court held that the respondent acted within its statutory authority under its governing legislation.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they breached the procedural duty to accommodate the respondent employee's disability.

The applicants argued the employee had repudiated his employment contract, negating any duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal's conclusion that the employer failed to sufficiently inquire into the employee's medical condition was reasonable.

The Court also declined to dismiss the application for undue delay, accepting counsel's explanation of ill health.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The employer sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award, arguing the arbitration board breached procedural fairness by considering post-hearing wage settlement data without allowing further submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board used the public information in a supplementary and confirmatory manner.

The court held that this approach was consistent with the flexible duty of fairness and the legislative nature of interest arbitration.

A former probationary instructor at the Ontario Police College sought judicial review of his 2003 dismissal.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay, as it was commenced nearly six years after the dismissal and perfected a year later.

The court granted the motion, finding the delay inordinate and excessive, the former employee's explanations inadequate, and that the delay caused prejudice to the moving parties given the remedy of reinstatement sought.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Racing Commission dismissing their motion for a stay of proceedings based on alleged inadequate disclosure and delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded that the disclosure order had been complied with, correctly applied the Stinchcombe test for disclosure, and did not deny procedural fairness or improperly shift the onus of proof.

The applicant physician brought a motion to stay a hearing before the hospital's Board of Directors regarding the termination of his hospital privileges, pending an application for judicial review.

The applicant alleged lack of notice and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found the applicant's case weak on the merits and that he would not suffer irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded.

The balance of convenience favoured continuing the hearing.

The motion for a stay was granted only to the extent that the Board was ordered not to disclose its decision until after the disposition of the judicial review application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Toronto Licensing Tribunal decision revoking their tow truck operator licenses.

They argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when their agent failed to appear, instead allowing two police witnesses to testify in chief.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the agent's subsequent refusal to cross-examine the witnesses and the Tribunal's overall fair conduct cured any initial prejudice.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new hearing, finding the initial refusal to adjourn and the admission of highly prejudicial, uninterrupted testimony fundamentally unfair.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal adding a former human resources administrator as a respondent party to an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the administrator as a party, as the complaint contained no allegations that she personally breached the Agricultural Employees Protection Act.

The Court dismissed the bias allegations, finding that the applicants had waived their objections and failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed its application for an above-guideline rent increase related to lobby renovations.

The Adjudicator had dismissed the claim due to missing schedules in the contract and concerns about a non-arms-length relationship between the landlord's agent and the contractor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator erred in law by relying on an irrelevant corporate relationship and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider the landlord's requests to file the missing documents.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator for rehearing.

The applicant, who has moderate hearing loss, applied to be a firefighter but failed the hearing test without his hearing aid.

The City of Toronto declined to hire him after an expert audiologist concluded he could not safely perform the duties even with a hearing aid.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint, which the Ontario Human Rights Commission declined to refer to the Tribunal, finding the hearing standard was a bona fide occupational requirement and the applicant had been individually assessed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review, holding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant, a corrections officer who was severely injured by an inmate, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board had awarded the maximum amount for pain and suffering but deducted a $12,000 Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award received from the Workers' Compensation Board, pursuant to s. 17(3) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The appellant argued this resulted in a double deduction because his long-term disability insurance also deducted the NEL award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion and that any dispute regarding insurance deductions was a matter between the appellant and his insurer.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Inquiry and sought to introduce fresh evidence and claim Charter damages against the Board and the Human Rights Commission for delay.

The Divisional Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that the Board is not a suable entity, and that delay does not found a claim under s. 7 of the Charter.

The court also denied the appellant's request for an adjournment to file a companion application for judicial review, ordering the appeal to proceed on its merits.