Administrative Law - ONCA

The appellant, Jennifer Ricketts, sought a stay of eviction orders issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board and confirmed by the Divisional Court, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal, per Lauwers J.A., granted the stay, finding a serious issue to be adjudicated, potential irreparable harm to Ms. Ricketts, and that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The decision discusses the test for a stay and the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in administrative proceedings.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, sought a panel review of a motion judge’s decision dismissing her motion for a stay pending appeal.

The underlying appeal was from an order declaring her a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, holding that Yan had not obtained leave to bring the motion as required by the vexatious litigant order and the statute.

The court reiterated that a person declared a vexatious litigant may file a notice of appeal without leave, but requires leave for any motions in the appeal.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s decision and awarded costs to the College.

The appellant, M.R., appealed from a Superior Court order upholding the Consent and Capacity Board’s finding that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

The respondent, Dr. Achal Mishra, moved to adduce fresh evidence showing that M.R. was found capable of consenting to treatment in July 2024 and has maintained capacity since.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be moot, as there was no longer a live issue, and dismissed the appeal, admitting the fresh evidence and making no order as to costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by 13 respondents to re-open an appeal regarding the Law Society of Ontario’s decision to void their licensing exam results and registrations due to exam integrity breaches.

The court found that the moving parties had not been denied judicial review, that their complaint was about the adequacy of reasons rather than a rare circumstance justifying re-opening, and that the interests of justice did not require reconsideration.

The court held that the Law Society’s actions were consistent with its by-laws and that the moving parties’ arguments had been addressed.

The appellant, J.A., appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice upholding a finding by the Consent and Capacity Board that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the lower court’s decision, upholding the dismissal of the appellant’s adjournment request and the application of the relevant legal principles regarding capacity and consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the statutory requirement that federal election Returning Officers reside in the ridings they administer violates the right to liberty under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The majority held that the right to liberty in section 7 does not extend to a free-standing right to choose one’s residence outside the context of the administration of justice, and dismissed the appeal.

The dissent would have found that the residency requirement was overbroad and infringed section 7, and would have granted the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, upholding the Divisional Court’s decision to quash an arbitration award that reinstated five employees dismissed by Metrolinx for sexual harassment.

The Court found that the arbitrator made legal and factual errors, including failing to recognize Metrolinx’s statutory duty to investigate workplace harassment even in the absence of a formal complaint, and improperly relying on myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Ms. Yan’s motion to stay a vexatious litigant order made against her under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as she had not obtained leave from a judge of the Superior Court of Justice as required.

The court held it was not appropriate to grant leave in its ex officio capacity, especially where procedural requirements, including notice to the Attorney General, had not been met.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aliamisse O. Mundulai’s motion for a panel review of a decision denying his request for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had dismissed his application for judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision denying his readmission to the Ontario Bar.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision, noting the lack of merit in the proposed appeal and emphasizing that leave to appeal was required.

The application was dismissed and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Law Society of Ontario’s appeal regarding the respondent’s application for licensure as a paralegal.

The court found that the tribunals below properly considered the respondent’s criminal offence and professional misconduct, and that there was no error in their assessment of her rehabilitation and good character.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellant, Zaafir Ahmed Munir, appealed a decision upholding the Town of Milton’s short-term rental bylaw and related enforcement actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Town had authority under the Municipal Act to enact the bylaw, that there was no conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the appellant’s Charter rights were not infringed.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered when a gender affirming surgery, specifically a vaginoplasty without penectomy, qualifies as an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP).

The court held that vaginoplasty is a specifically listed insured service in the Schedule of Benefits, regardless of whether it is accompanied by a penectomy, and that the exclusion for experimental procedures does not apply to specifically listed services.

The appeal by the General Manager of OHIP was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Doug Lloyd’s appeal from the Superior Court’s refusal to extend time for judicial review of the Crown’s decision to stay his private prosecution against Bell Canada.

The court held that prosecutorial discretion is only reviewable for abuse of process, which requires egregious conduct.

The application judge made no error in law or fact, and the Crown’s decision not to consider expert evidence or to stay the prosecution on public interest grounds did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Enbridge Gas Inc.'s appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that the 1957 franchise agreement between Enbridge and the County of Essex had not expired under the rule against perpetuities.

The court found that the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) erred in law by misapplying the rule against perpetuities, focusing on the duration of the right rather than the vesting of the interest.

The court also held that the Divisional Court was not bound by its earlier decision in Dawn-Euphemia and that the OEB could not impose a new franchise agreement unless the existing one had lapsed or was about to lapse.

This endorsement addresses motions for leave to intervene in an appeal by Antonio Caruso challenging the Law Society of Ontario’s restrictions on paralegals’ scope of practice in immigration matters.

The Court grants leave to intervene to the Ontario Paralegal Association, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, and the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, but denies leave to the Canadian Paralegal Alliance.

The decision reviews the relevant principles for intervention, the backgrounds and proposed contributions of each intervener, and the reasons for granting or denying leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Randy Hillier’s appeal, finding that Ontario’s absolute ban on outdoor peaceful assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic was not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The court held that the government failed to consider the impact of the gathering limits on the right to peaceful assembly under section 2(c) and did not tailor the restrictions to accommodate this fundamental freedom, unlike the approach taken for religious gatherings.

The decision clarifies the independent constitutional status of peaceful assembly and the necessity for governments to justify limits on this right, especially in the context of political protest.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the Crown's application for leave to appeal a Provincial Offences Appeal Court (POAC) decision upholding the City of Greater Sudbury's acquittal on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The case arose from a fatal workplace accident involving a road grader operated by a contractor.

The court found that the trial judge and POAC judge properly applied the due diligence defence and that the issues raised by the Crown did not meet the high threshold for a second-level appeal.

The decision clarifies the application of due diligence in occupational health and safety prosecutions, emphasizing that such defences must be directed at the specific violations alleged and that findings of control are primarily factual.

The appellant, Douglas Naus, appealed an order confirming a Consent and Capacity Board decision that he was incapable of consenting to treatment and subject to a community treatment order (CTO) requiring antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the incapacity finding was moot, but exercised its discretion to decide the CTO issue, holding that the Board and appeal judge erred in interpreting the statutory preconditions for a CTO.

The Court held that the Mental Health Act requires successful treatment to have occurred during a prior hospitalization, not the current one, before a CTO can be issued.

The CTO was quashed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Tanya Rebello’s appeal from the order of Justice Robert Centa, which struck her statement of claim and dismissed her action regarding the erroneous transfer of her vehicle’s registration by ServiceOntario.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s findings that the claims were duplicative, constituted an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also upheld the costs award against Ms. Rebello and declined to grant leave to appeal the costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 (ROPA) violates section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and whether a public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law.

The appellant, Ontario Place Protectors, challenged the constitutionality of ROPA, arguing it insulated state action from judicial scrutiny and breached public trust.

The Court found the application judge erred in denying public interest standing but held that ROPA does not contravene section 96, as it preserves judicial review and does not usurp the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.

The Court also found no basis for a public trust doctrine in Canadian law.

The appeal was dismissed.