ONSCDC 2023

Following a successful application for judicial review that set aside a Children's Aid Society decision due to procedural unfairness, the Society sought directions on whether it was required to conduct a fresh investigation.

The Divisional Court clarified that the Society is not obliged to commence a new investigation, but if it chooses to do so, it should be conducted by another agency with appropriate procedural safeguards.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) investigated a cheating scandal involving the November 2021 licensing exams.

Based on statistical anomalies, the LSO voided the applicants' exam results and their registration in the licensing process without holding a hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that while voiding the compromised exams was a reasonable administrative measure, voiding the applicants' registration and imposing regulatory sanctions without a hearing breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the punitive sanctions and remitted the matters to the LSO.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Ministries disqualifying its bid for a government debt collection contract.

The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation stage for failing to demonstrate it was currently registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procurement dispute was commercial in nature and not subject to judicial review.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Ministries' decision to disqualify the bid based on an expired registration certificate was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Discipline and Fitness to Practise Committees to amend their rule regarding third-party record production to align with R. v. Mills.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing as he was not currently subject to any proceedings where the rule would apply.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if standing were established, the Committees' decision to update the rule was reasonable and within their statutory authority.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated October 3 and 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents jointly in the amount of $10,000.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated July 26, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $7,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Wilkinson J. dated July 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacEachern J. dated June 23, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant pharmacist appealed the decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists finding professional misconduct, imposing a penalty, and awarding costs of $190,000.

The misconduct involved billing for medications not prescribed or received, and falsifying records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Committee's decisions regarding misconduct, penalty, or costs.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

After waiting for half an hour, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim against the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board.

The plaintiff alleged he was brutally beaten by police officers and claimed the Chief and Board were liable for negligent training, supervision, and systemic issues.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the allegations against the Board relating to day-to-day operational functions, as the Board's statutory duty is limited to policy.

The court also struck irrelevant after-the-fact allegations but upheld the claims against the Chief and the policy-related claims against the Board.

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing affordable housing, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a municipal tax exemption under s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The application judge found that the appellant was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' because it did not engage in 'some form of endeavour' to provide relief, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Religious Hospitallers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of binding precedent, though a concurring opinion suggested the Religious Hospitallers decision should be revisited.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging age discrimination in credit card travel insurance.

The HRTO had dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code applied.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator made a fundamental error by placing the onus on the applicant to prove that s. 22 did not apply, rather than on the respondents seeking to benefit from the exception.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary hearing before a different adjudicator.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.

The appellant homeowner appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent contractor $20,046 for home renovations.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in fact-finding, contract interpretation, applying the Consumer Protection Act, and violated natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had reached an oral agreement on the amount owing.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant could not rely on the Consumer Protection Act to void the contract, as she had specifically requested an oral agreement to avoid paying HST.

Claims of bias and inadequate reasons were also dismissed.

The landlord co-op brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of an eviction order for delay.

The tenant had been evicted following repeated breaches of a consent order, including engaging in behaviour that threatened the safety of other residents and staff.

Since filing the notice of appeal, the tenant took no steps to perfect the appeal, stopped paying rent, and continued his disruptive and threatening behaviour.

The court found the tenant's explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, noted the appeal had little chance of success as it raised questions of fact rather than law, and found significant prejudice to the co-op.

The motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed for delay, and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation ordering it to pay $7,500 in delayed occupancy compensation to a purchaser.

The builder argued that the delay was unavoidable due to a fire and the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it had provided proper notice to the purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's decision was reasonable because the builder's notice failed to specify an end date for the unavoidable delay or provide a brief description of it, and the builder failed to provide sufficient evidence that the entire delay was caused by the fire and pandemic.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the school board's decision finding he breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to in camera meetings and alleged bias of the Chair, and that the decision unreasonably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness, the in camera meetings were statutorily permitted due to related litigation, and the board reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter rights with its statutory obligations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a school board's decision to stop her presentation at a public meeting.

The applicant had been approved to speak about transparency in a library review process but digressed to critique specific books discussing gender identity.

The chair stopped her presentation on the basis that it could violate human rights legislation and board policies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision was reasonable, did not breach procedural fairness, and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the board reasonably balanced the applicant's freedom of expression with its statutory objectives and policies regarding equity and inclusion.