Administrative Law - ODC

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board, which allowed the respondent landlord to re-occupy the residential premises.

The tenant argued the Board erred in interpreting a lease renewal provision, mischaracterized a rent increase clause, and denied procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons on review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the lease provision using a practical common-sense approach and that the review process met the requirements of procedural fairness under the Baker factors.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The ICRC had required the applicant to appear for a caution and submit a reflective essay following a complaint from a female patient regarding an inappropriate comment made during a pelvic examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the ICRC's investigation and the reasonableness of its remedial disposition were transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The appellant, CNH, appealed a decision of the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

During an attendance before the Divisional Court, the parties consented to refer the matter back to the Tribunal but could not agree on costs.

Following the Tribunal's subsequent decision, both parties sought costs for the earlier court attendance.

The court found neither party was entitled to the excessive costs sought and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the attendance fixed at $2,500.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to summarily dismiss her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal had concluded that earlier incidents were out of time and not part of a series of incidents, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent employer.

Several proposed intervenors brought motions to vary a motions judge's decision denying them intervenor status in a judicial review application.

They argued the motions judge erred by considering the overlap in their proposed submissions and the burden on the court process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and made no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in exercising his discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed her claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant alleged the police discriminated against her by refusing to investigate her complaints of psychotronic mind control due to a perceived mental illness.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the police properly refused to investigate because the complaints did not constitute a crime was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a partially successful application for judicial review regarding the municipal reimbursement of legal expenses for city councillors.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $15,000 payable by the city, noting the lack of complexity and partial success.

The court declined to award costs against the individual councillors, and ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to one councillor who successfully opposed the relief sought against him personally.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion to strike the affidavits of Dr. Robert McMurtry, submitted by the responding party in an application for judicial review challenging wind turbine setback regulations.

The moving party argued the affidavits were irrelevant, contained hearsay, and that the affiant lacked expert qualifications.

The court declined to strike the affidavits in their entirety, leaving issues of relevance, hearsay, and expert qualifications to the panel hearing the merits.

However, the court struck references to studies post-dating the adoption of the regulation, as they could not have informed the regulatory decision.

The applicant, a Toronto city councillor, brought an application for judicial review to quash municipal by-laws authorizing the reimbursement of legal expenses for three other councillors.

The expenses related to compliance audits of election campaign finances and defamation actions.

The Divisional Court held that the by-law reimbursing expenses for the compliance audits was ultra vires, as the expenses were not incurred in the councillors' capacity as members of council.

However, the court upheld the by-law reimbursing expenses for a defamation action brought by a sitting councillor, finding it was reasonably connected to her duties.

The application was granted in part.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal refusing to renew his registration as a real estate broker.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had participated in a mortgage fraud scheme by providing false appraisals, and concluded he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider imposing conditions on his license and by drawing an adverse inference from his initial exercise of his right to silence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision to revoke the license without conditions was reasonable given the egregious nature of the fraud, and that the Tribunal properly considered the timing of the appellant's cooperation in assessing his rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision imposing conditions on his real estate broker registration.

The respondent cross-appealed the Tribunal's finding that the appellant would conduct his business with honesty and integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s. 14(5) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 to impose conditions to protect the public.

The Court also found the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the appellant's past conduct and future integrity was reasonable.

The Chief Coroner for Ontario brought a motion to set aside an order requiring him to file a record of proceedings for a judicial review application concerning his refusal to order an inquest into a death.

The Divisional Court held that the Chief Coroner was not exercising a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when deciding whether to hold an inquest, as he was determining the public interest rather than legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

Consequently, the Chief Coroner was not required to file a record of proceedings, and the motion was granted.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director to place a hold on an approval process for an international adoption.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the Director's decision, and ordered the Director to notify the relevant authorities, including the China Centre of Adoption Affairs and the Canadian Embassy, that the temporary hold was no longer in effect and that the approval of the proposed adoption was in full force and effect.

Imperial Oil Limited applied for judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that its random drug testing policy using buccal swabs violated the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration board's interpretation of the collective agreement in light of established arbitral jurisprudence (the 'Canadian model') was not patently unreasonable.

The Court held that the board did not alter the collective agreement, did not rely on unsupported findings of fact, and reasonably interpreted the agreement's requirement to treat employees with respect and dignity without needing to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Writers Guild of Canada brought an application for judicial review of a preliminary arbitration award.

The arbitrator had concluded he had jurisdiction to determine whether a grievor was an employee/dependent contractor or an independent contractor under the Status of the Artist Act.

The applicant argued the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over this issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation and had jurisdiction to determine the grievor's employment status as a preliminary issue of arbitrability.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying him access to certain government and police records related to his 1982 prosecution for fraud.

The applicant sought the records for use in a civil action for malicious prosecution.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Assistant Commissioners reasonably applied the statutory exemptions for advice to government and personal privacy under FIPPA and MFIPPA.

The court affirmed that the applicant's private interest in civil litigation did not constitute a compelling public interest sufficient to override the privacy exemptions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant had been suspended twice by his employer following work refusals.

The Board found the discipline was imposed for threats and engaging in an illegal work stoppage, not for raising safety concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Board's factual determinations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which confirmed the dismissal of his complaint against a police officer.

The complaint arose from an incident where police responded to a landlord-tenant dispute involving the applicant, who is elderly and disabled.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission's conclusion—that there was no reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing for police misconduct—was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee had imposed a one-year suspension, with seven months running concurrently with a prior employer suspension, and the remaining five months suspended on conditions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Committee's decision not to revoke the teacher's certificate was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the appeal but varied the wording of the penalty to clarify the five-month conditional suspension.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent teacher.