Administrative Law - ONSCDC

The moving party sought leave to bring an application for judicial review to set aside part of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave.

The court ordered no costs due to the absence of a Costs Outline, directed that deposited monies be paid out to the responding party, and lifted the stay against the enforcement of the determination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Provincial Police concluding that the misconduct of two officers, one of whom struck and killed the applicant's spouse with a police vehicle, was 'not of a serious nature'.

The Divisional Court held that the OPP was required to provide written reasons justifying its conclusion, given the severity of the incident and the statutory framework.

The court found the OPP's decision unreasonable because it merely listed generic factors without explaining how they applied to the specific officers.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.

The moving party sought to review a judge's direction refusing to schedule a motion to extend the time for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to the moving party's lengthy, unexplained delay and failure to comply with previous court orders.

Finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain the delay or demonstrate arguable merit in the underlying application, the court dismissed the motion to review.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and two subsequent orders denying extensions of time to review the eviction.

The tenant failed to attend the initial hearing and provided no reasons for his unavailability other than needing time to prepare.

The Board proceeded in his absence and ordered eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant later sought extensions of time to review the order, which were denied for lack of reasonable explanation for the delay.

On appeal, the tenant introduced new evidence that he was incarcerated during the initial hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness by the Board based on the information before it at the time, and noting the tenant was released from incarceration well before the deadline to seek a review.

The appellant landlords appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding they terminated a tenancy in bad faith and denying two subsequent review requests.

The landlords failed to attend the initial hearing, claiming confusion over multiple hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law.

The Board reasonably proceeded in the landlords' absence, considered their late-filed evidence, and properly denied the review requests due to the landlords' lack of diligence in failing to attend or seek clarification.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy to allow the landlords to demolish and rebuild the house.

The tenant had failed to attend the eviction hearing and subsequently sought a review, which the Board dismissed after finding he had been properly served with notice and did not genuinely intend to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding service were supported by the record and that there was no error of law or breach of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's refusal to deduct a CRA tax payment from her monthly employment earnings for ODSP purposes.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the payment and breached procedural fairness by not allowing her former spouse to represent her while she was at work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to consider the tax payment during a later review of business earnings.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had ample notice of the hearing and her former spouse was permitted to assist her.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee penalty decision that suspended a veterinarian's licence for eight months for professional misconduct involving workplace abuse and altering records, arguing the penalty lacked necessary enforcement provisions.

The veterinarian cross-appealed the liability findings, alleging flawed credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings and concluding the penalty imposed was not clearly unfit or unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions dismissing her complaints against a college.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found the application regarding the 2017 complaint was significantly out of time with no reasonable prospect for an extension, and dismissed that portion of the application.

For the 2020 complaint, the court directed the applicant to amend her pleadings to name the proper respondents before proceeding.

The appellant municipality appealed a Drainage Referee's order denying it costs and sought a declaration that a referee who conducts a pre-hearing cannot preside at the hearing.

The respondent landowners cross-appealed the Referee's finding that a proposed drainage project was an 'improvement' under the Drainage Act rather than a new drainage works requiring a petition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the costs award and holding that a declaration was unnecessary given existing rules.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Referee correctly distinguished prior case law and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the project was an improvement despite an increase in capacity.

The appellants, two tenants in a residential property, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member breached the duty of procedural fairness by excluding each tenant from portions of the virtual hearing where relevant evidence was given, and then relying on that evidence in the decisions.

The appeals were allowed and the matters remitted to the Board for new hearings before a different member.

The respondent was successful on an application for judicial review concerning environmental regulation and hazardous gas wells.

The parties agreed that if costs were awarded, $20,000 all-inclusive would be reasonable.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that while there were few decisions under the specific Act, related environmental protection case law provided sufficient guidance.

The court declined to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event and ordered the applicant to pay $20,000 in costs to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) regarding a lot severance and zoning variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that most of the proposed issues were questions of mixed fact and law.

The one potential question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act did not raise good reason to doubt the correctness of the TLAB's decision.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent property owner, but no costs were awarded to the TLAB, which had unnecessarily participated in the motion contrary to a case management direction.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that upheld an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning approved by the City of Ottawa.

The amendments permitted the development of a warehouse and e-commerce centre on lands adjacent to Highway 416.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no extricable error of law of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The applicant brought applications for judicial review challenging the City of Guelph's decisions to remove three anti-abortion advertisements from its public buses.

The City had relied on rulings by Ad Standards, which found the advertisements to be misleading and demeaning to women.

The Divisional Court held that the City's decisions were unreasonable because it failed to conduct the balancing exercise required by the Doré/Loyola framework, which requires weighing the City's legislative objectives against the applicant's section 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression.

The matter was remitted back to the City for reconsideration.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to undergo a second specified continuous education or remediation program (SCERP) for ongoing medical record-keeping deficiencies.

The applicant argued the decision was an abuse of process and unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process despite a minor procedural fairness breach, and held that the ICRC's decision to escalate remediation was a reasonable and proportionate response to the applicant's persistent record-keeping issues.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which imposed a 12-month suspension and a general prohibition on prescribing and administering controlled substances.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by departing from a joint submission that would have allowed him to continue prescribing in an in-hospital setting, and by imposing a 12-month rather than 6-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee provided adequate notice of its concerns, met the high threshold for departing from a joint submission, and imposed a fit and proportionate penalty given the appellant's severe clinical deficiencies.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of Del Frate J. regarding the contents of the record for an appeal from the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that based on the parties' agreement and Practice Direction 6, the 17-volume record filed by the Director constituted the evidence at the hearing and must be included in the Tribunal's record for the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury and was granted Future Economic Loss benefits.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board calculated his pre-injury earnings without including his employer's contributions to his union's health and pension plans.

The applicant appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the decision.

The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Tribunal's decision patently unreasonable because it failed to consider the legislative history and the government's explanation for the applicable statutory provisions.