Administrative Law - ONSCDC

The applicant owner sought judicial review of an adjudicator's determination ordering it to pay the respondent contractor $685,574.91 under the prompt payment regime of the Construction Act.

The owner argued the adjudicator erred by rejecting its set-off claim for delay, misinterpreting notice holdback obligations, and conducting a procedurally unfair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the contract did not support the delay claim and correctly held that actual notice of registered liens does not trigger notice holdback obligations.

The court also found no procedural unfairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, an elected school trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision finding she breached its Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The board alleged a conflict of interest after a parent committee hired the applicant's husband for a presentation.

An independent investigator concluded there was no breach, but the board rejected this finding without providing reasons.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it was unsupported by the record and lacked justification.

The board's decisions on the breach and sanctions were quashed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,907.60.

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that upheld his misconduct conviction for Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority and ordered a new hearing for a Neglect of Duty charge.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer failed to remove handcuffs from a misidentified suspect after learning they were not the intended target.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OCPC's decision reasonable.

The court upheld the OCPC's dismissal of a fresh evidence motion regarding post-decision communications, found no reversible error in the hearing officer's use of copied precedents, and agreed that the failure to release the misidentified suspect constituted an unlawful arrest.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination application as an abuse of process for failing to produce medical records.

In a prior case management direction, a Vice-Chair had ruled that the requirement to produce medical records was moot because the applicant was only pursuing general damages.

The adjudicator subsequently dismissed the application for non-production without addressing the mootness ruling or providing the applicant an opportunity to make submissions on altering it.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by implicitly overturning the prior ruling without notice or process.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to a different adjudicator.

The applicant brought a motion within a judicial review application seeking an order to compel the Law Society of Ontario to file a record of proceedings under s. 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Law Society argued that its decision to close the applicant's complaint against a lawyer was not a 'statutory power of decision' and thus no record was required.

The court dismissed the motion as moot, finding that the affidavit filed by the Law Society in its motion record already provided the information and confirmation the applicant sought.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal granting a three-month adjournment to the respondent insurer.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 to consider dismissing the proceeding.

The court found that the application was premature, as courts rarely intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and moot, as the adjourned hearing date had already arrived.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, without prejudice to the applicant's right to raise procedural issues in a future review of the final decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to reschedule a hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature and moot because the hearing was subsequently rescheduled and the application was ultimately deemed abandoned.

The court gave the self-represented applicant a final opportunity to amend his notice of application to challenge the final orders of the Board, failing which the court would consider dismissing the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board denying his request for default judgment in an unlawful reprisal application.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature and an abuse of process.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative proceeding, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as patently premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision refusing to reconsider its dismissal of his complaint against Meta Platforms Inc. for lack of jurisdiction.

The HRTO had concluded that Meta is a federally regulated undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO's jurisdictional decision was correct.

Applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and division of powers principles, the Court confirmed that Meta provides services over the internet, constituting an interprovincial telecommunications undertaking subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.

The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.

The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a discipline decision of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which arose from an agreed statement of fact, plea, and joint submission on penalty.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence, alleging that a panel member was asleep during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence was not sufficiently cogent and partly inadmissible hearsay.

As there were no other grounds for the appeal, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, a school board trustee, brought an application for judicial review of an in-camera decision of the respondent school board.

At the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the in-camera decision had not been brought to a public vote as required by the Education Act.

The parties reached an agreement that no decision was made and the matter would not be put to a public vote, leaving only the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, finding that the respondent failed to communicate its intention not to proceed with a public vote until the hearing, causing the applicant to unnecessarily incur costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an administrative penalty order issued to his father, the registered owner of a vehicle caught speeding by an automated camera.

The applicant was the driver and acted as his father's agent before the tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that under section 21.1(9) of the Highway Traffic Act, the driver does not have standing to seek judicial review.

The court adjourned the hearing and ordered the title of proceedings amended to substitute the father as the proper applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (OSET) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding his son's special education placement.

The applicant argued his son, who has autism, required 1:1 support in a regular classroom.

The OSET dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 1:1 support was a 'service' rather than a 'placement.' The HRTO subsequently summarily dismissed the applicant's human rights complaints.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding the OSET's narrow interpretation of 'placement' and the HRTO's summary dismissal were both unreasonable.

The HRTO decision was quashed and remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld findings of professional misconduct and a penalty of permission to resign.

The misconduct involved the appellant's participation in two dishonest international financial transactions where advance fees were deposited into his trust account and disbursed without any loans being secured.

The appellant argued that the tribunal erred in its findings of knowledge and recklessness, misapplied penalty principles, and improperly dismissed interlocutory motions alleging systemic anti-Black racism and bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the tribunal's decisions on misconduct, penalty, costs, or its jurisdiction to order reimbursement to the Compensation Fund.

The applicant brought a motion to extend the time to file an application for judicial review of a decision by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The Fund had deferred consideration of her claim pending the outcome of a related civil trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the 13-month delay and that there were no apparent grounds for relief, as the Fund was entitled to require the applicant to obtain a judgment before paying compensation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding the revocation of a motor vehicle dealer's registration.

The appellant Registrar opposed the motion, arguing the LAT's intervention would defend its own decision and compromise impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed factum provided a nuanced analysis of the standard of review without taking a position on the merits, thereby offering a useful contribution without raising impartiality concerns.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that declined to hear four health and safety grievances related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a correctional facility.

The Arbitrator had ruled the grievances were barred by issue estoppel and collateral attack because the union had previously sought orders from Ministry of Labour inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for the same issues but failed to appeal the inspectors' decisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's application of issue estoppel and collateral attack was reasonable.