Administrative Law - ONCA

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their remaining claims for damages arising from the respondent municipality's enactment of a fill permit by-law and its unsuccessful prosecution of the appellants for breach of that by-law.

The appellants claimed malicious prosecution, misfeasance and abuse of public office, and damages from the invalid fee provisions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial on any of the claims.

The respondent had reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue the prosecution, and there was no evidence of bad faith or unlawful conduct in enacting the by-law.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 6, 2019.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, appealed a conditional discharge disposition that prohibited him from driving and required abstinence from alcohol.

The appellant argued the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his suspended driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidence, but expressed concern about the lack of information available regarding the licence suspension and directed that detailed information be obtained for the next review.

The moving party sought either to have the Court of Appeal reconstitute itself as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear his appeal immediately after the appellant's appeal, or to be granted leave to intervene as a party in the appellant's appeal.

Both the moving party and the appellant were injured in motor vehicle accidents and had their statutory accident benefits claims denied.

The moving party argued that both appeals raised the same or similar issues regarding the application of the two-year limitation period for disputing the refusal of statutory accident benefits.

The court dismissed both requests, finding that allowing the moving party to bypass the Divisional Court would be improper absent compelling reasons, and that efficiency alone was insufficient justification for such an extraordinary step.

The applicant sought to extend the time to appeal an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his application for judicial review on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The application for judicial review had sought mandamus requiring the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada to produce its decision limiting the number of qualifying exams each candidate is allowed.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the Court of Appeal for Ontario lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court on an interlocutory motion.

The proper route of appeal is to a panel of the Divisional Court under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Placement agencies that supplied temporary workers to the federal government appealed assessments requiring them to pay employer health tax under the Employer Health Tax Act.

The agencies argued they were not employers of the workers because the Government of Canada managed and directed the workers.

The appeal judge found the parties were involved in a tripartite relationship and determined the agencies were the employers because they paid remuneration to the workers, held contractual obligations to the workers, and the government's contractual documentation indicated its intention that the workers be employees of the placement agencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the appeal judge undertook a comprehensive review of all circumstances and did not err in concluding the agencies were employers for tax purposes.

An appeal concerning reasonable apprehension of bias and adjudicative independence in administrative tribunal decision-making.

The applicant sought a determination that her motor vehicle accident injuries met the statutory threshold for catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator initially determined the threshold was not met.

An anonymous letter subsequently revealed that the executive chair of the tribunal cluster had reviewed and altered the adjudicator's draft decision before release.

The Divisional Court found a reasonable apprehension of lack of adjudicative independence due to the imposed consultation process lacking procedural safeguards.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, emphasizing that consultation cannot be imposed by a superior level of authority without the adjudicator's consent and that robust procedural protections are required to safeguard independence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend.

The appellant had been charged with careless driving following a motor vehicle collision, but the charge was withdrawn.

He subsequently sued for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.

The motion judge struck the claim as frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had adequately pleaded the elements of negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy, albeit with significant scandalous and irrelevant material.

The court varied the order, striking only the scandalous portions without leave to amend while permitting the remainder to proceed with leave to amend.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a warrant of committal, challenged the Board's May 8, 2018 disposition imposing a detention order on a general secure unit and refusing community living privileges.

The appellant did not contest the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the conditions were not the least onerous and restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness, risk of reoffending, and the evidentiary basis for the alcohol prohibition condition.

The appellants made a one-million-dollar charitable donation to a mental health hospital for a designated workplace mental health program over three years.

When dissatisfied with the program's progress and reporting, the donor sought an investigation by the Public Guardian and Trustee under the Charities Accounting Act.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no evidence of mismanagement or misuse of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the funds were properly spent on the designated program and that no public interest was served by ordering an investigation.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 10, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for possession of weapons dangerous, sought a conditional discharge or alternatively a new hearing.

The Board maintained a detention order in the general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with relaxed reporting requirements.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable due to inadequate reasons regarding whether the appellant's risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge.

The court directed the Board to reconsider the disposition at its next hearing with proper consideration of relevant factors, including mechanisms for securing attendance at hospital and the timing of any intervention.

An appellant who was found not criminally responsible on a charge of assault in 2007 appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her application for a declaration that section 672.56 of the Criminal Code violated her Charter rights under section 7.

The appellant argued that the section did not afford a not criminally responsible accused the ability to compel the Ontario Review Board to hold a hearing to review a decision by a hospital to significantly increase restrictions on liberty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provides adequate procedural safeguards and liberty protections for such accused persons.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order rather than granting a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board made a palpable and overriding factual error regarding his propensity to decompensate and that the Board failed to adequately consider alternative mechanisms for readmission to hospital.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding that the Board's findings were supported by evidence and that the detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available given the appellant's risk to public safety.

An appeal of a Criminal Code section 672.54(c) detention order made by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in concluding that he poses a significant risk to the public and that the Board committed a Carrick error by failing to make this determination independently of his admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while a Board must make its own determination of dangerousness, it is entitled to rely on counsel's credible acknowledgement that the significant threat standard has been met, provided the Board does not abdicate its responsibility to assess the evidence.

Foreign nationals released from immigration detention on terms amounting to virtual house arrest sought habeas corpus relief when their application to modify the conditions was rejected.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that habeas corpus was unavailable because the applicants were not held in custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that habeas corpus applies to any deprivation of liberty, not merely incarceration in a custodial facility.

The court remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice to determine whether the remaining requirements for habeas corpus were satisfied.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed two decisions granting habeas corpus relief to an individual detained on account of an outstanding deportation order.

The applicant had been detained for approximately 25 months on immigration grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to release the applicant on habeas corpus, finding that the detention was lengthy and of uncertain duration and could no longer be justified as furthering the machinery of immigration control.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by assuming jurisdiction to supervise any subsequent re-incarceration by immigration authorities.

The Court struck the problematic supervisory clause and provided guidance on appropriate conditions for release in immigration detention cases.

The appellant Ledore Investments Limited appealed from a Superior Court judgment that set aside a commercial arbitration award.

The underlying dispute arose from final subcontract accounting in a major bridge construction project, where the respondent Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. was the general contractor and the appellant was a subcontractor supplying steel.

The central issue concerned whether Ellis-Don had made a written claim for delay costs within the time required by Article 15.1(a) of the subcontract.

The arbitrator found that Ellis-Don had not made an actual claim in writing, distinguishing between an intention to claim and an actual claim.

The appeal judge reversed the arbitrator's award, finding the arbitrator had misapplied legal principles from Doyle Construction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of Article 15.1(a) was eminently reasonable and reinstated the arbitration award.

The appellant appealed a finding of incapacity to consent to anti-psychotic medication made by a physician and confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on criminal charges and was detained at a psychiatric facility.

Subsequently, her appeal of the NCR verdict was allowed and a new trial was ordered, but she remained detained under the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the incapacity finding was not moot despite the successful appeal of the NCR verdict, as the appellant remained lawfully detained at the time the incapacity determination was made.

The Court upheld the Board's finding that although the appellant could understand relevant information about treatment, she could not apply it to her own circumstances due to her delusional disorder.

On appeal from a trial judgment finding the municipal defendants liable for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident on a rural road during winter conditions.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation and application of the Municipal Act, 2001 duty to clear roads of snow and ice.

The trial judge found the road in a state of non-repair and held the municipality failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or correct the condition.

The appellants argued the trial judge applied an unreasonably high standard of maintenance for a Class 4 rural road, erred in requiring the application of straight salt rather than sand/salt mixture, and excluded relevant evidence regarding financial costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside the liability findings, and ordered a new trial on liability issues while upholding the damages assessment.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 5, 2016.

The appellant challenged the Board's order regarding his detention and conditions.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's conduct troubling but close to the threshold for satisfying the "significant threat to the safety of the public" requirement.

The Court upheld the Board's order but directed that on the next review, all possibilities including conditional discharge be fully addressed, noting the appellant's prior successful functioning on conditions for approximately four years.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder remain on the secure forensic unit of a hospital.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on his lack of insight into his mental illness, likelihood of non-compliance with medication, and psychological testing indicating high risk of psychotic relapse and violent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition as reasonable and dismissed the appeal.