Administrative Law - SCJ

The court dismissed James Brajak’s application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of a purported estate/trust and recognition as a “free private ecclesiastical person.” The court found the application lacked legal basis or merit, was not justiciable, and relied on nonsensical and religious arguments.

The court emphasized the importance of robustly applying Rule 2.1 to prevent waste of judicial resources.

The applicant, M.D., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay criminal charges against two police officers following an incident in which M.D. alleged sexual assault during a search at a hospital.

The court considered whether the SIU Director had a duty to lay charges, whether an alternative remedy was available, and whether the merits of the Director’s decision justified mandamus.

The court found no duty owed to the applicant to form reasonable and probable grounds, held that the private prosecution process under section 504 of the Criminal Code was an adequate alternative remedy, and found no evidence of bias or improper motive in the Director’s decision.

The application for mandamus was dismissed.

The applicant, Berardi Construction, sought to rescind an order to comply issued by the County of Norfolk requiring a building permit for a retaining wall.

The court found that the retaining wall was not a "building" for the purposes of the Building Code Act and that no building permit was required.

The order to comply was rescinded, and the issue of damages was directed to proceed to trial.

The court found the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) in contempt of court for circumventing a court order prohibiting it from licensing architectural technologists except as authorized by regulation.

After a prior order voided technologist licences, the OAA issued architect licences to technologists with the same practice restrictions as the banned licences, using a statutory committee process.

The court held this was a breach of both the letter and spirit of the order, as the process was a disguised continuation of the prohibited policy.

The decision reviews the statutory context, the events after the order, and the legal test for contempt, concluding that the OAA intentionally disobeyed the order.

The court dismissed Milad Babadi’s motion for judicial recusal and related relief as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The decision reviews the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, the proper remedy of appeal, and the hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court found Mr. Babadi’s conduct and submissions to be a textbook example of vexatious litigation and stayed his motion, prohibiting further motions without leave.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.

The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the implementation of s. 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act, which requires the removal of certain protected bike lanes in Toronto.

The court found that the applicants met the test for an interlocutory injunction, including a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the applicants.

The injunction was granted, suspending the operation of the provision until the court’s decision on the constitutional application.

The court considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to strike the plaintiff’s action, which alleged negligence in the administration of pilot medical certification.

The plaintiff, a commercial pilot, had his medical certificate refused due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, but was later found fit and granted an unrestricted certificate after a successful appeal.

The court found that the regulatory regime’s purpose is public safety, not the protection of individual economic interests, and that no private law duty of care is owed by Transport Canada to pilots in these circumstances.

The action was struck in its entirety.

The applicant, Gaetano Di Blasi, sought a declaration that his property in Aurora, Ontario, was protected as an existing non-conforming use, allowing him to continue using it for outdoor storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, business operations, storage of heavy trucks, and trailers.

The Town of Aurora opposed all uses except residential.

The court reviewed the history of zoning, prior proceedings, and the legal test for non-conforming use, ultimately finding that the relevant date for establishing legal non-conforming use was September 8, 1970, and that the applicant failed to prove the claimed uses were legal and continuous from that date.

The application was dismissed, and costs awarded to the Town.

The appellant, G.T., challenged a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the criteria for issuing a Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The appeal focused on whether there was informed consent by the substitute decision maker (SDM) and whether the Board erred by relying on uncorroborated hearsay.

The court found that the SDM was properly informed and consented to the treatment plan, and that the Board did not make a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Hydro One Networks Inc., moved for a temporary stay of an action brought by Nyon Oil Inc. and 1170367 Ontario Inc. regarding land ownership and rights to operate electricity transmission infrastructure.

The court considered the overlap and differences between the Superior Court action and a parallel Ontario Energy Board proceeding, ultimately granting a one-year stay to allow the Board to determine expropriation and related issues first.

The court found that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the ongoing operation of the transmission system and that a stay would avoid inconsistent findings and protect the public interest.

The applicants sought to quash licensing by-laws enacted by the Township of Tiny to restrict short-term rentals (STRs), arguing the by-laws were a disguised zoning by-law and ultra vires the Municipal Act.

The Court found the by-laws were a valid exercise of municipal authority, rationally connected to legitimate objectives such as health, safety, and consumer protection, and not a disguised zoning by-law.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former president and Life member of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), challenged the revocation of his Life membership, claiming it breached the CIU By-laws and seeking reinstatement.

The Court found that Life membership was an honorary status, not contractual, and that its revocation was not justiciable.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the relationship did not create enforceable legal rights.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the removal of certain bike lanes in Toronto, arguing that the removal would unjustifiably infringe the section 7 Charter rights of cyclists by exposing them to a heightened risk of injury or death.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm was established, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the presumption that legislation serves the public interest.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order that found the tenant’s use of parking spot 69 was an implied term of the lease and denied the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy.

The Superior Court upheld the LTB’s decision, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) allows for implied terms and that the LTB properly considered the pattern of conduct and statutory context.

The landlord’s argument that the lease allowed for unilateral reallocation of parking was rejected.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Minotar Holdings Inc., sought a declaration that certain sections of the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 and the Greenbelt Act, 2005 violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by legislating a judicial outcome and depriving the Superior Court of its jurisdiction.

The court found that the amendments did not violate the Constitution, as the legislature has the authority to extinguish causes of action and define land use boundaries, provided it uses clear and explicit statutory language.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The court dismissed Steven Howell’s defamation action against Tracy Cullen, Manager of Licensing at the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO), as frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that Ms. Cullen was protected by statutory immunity for actions taken in good faith within the scope of her employment, and that Mr. Howell’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also fixed costs against Mr. Howell in the amount of $15,000.

The court dismissed Mijanur Rahman's application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought orders reinstating and renewing various financial licenses and waiving renewal costs, but the court found that such relief was not available by application to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court held that the application lacked legal merit, was not properly brought under the cited rules or statutes, and would inevitably fail.

The decision clarifies the robust application of Rule 2.1 to prevent clearly unmeritorious proceedings from consuming judicial resources.

This decision concerns an appeal by L.H. from a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) decision confirming her incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The court reviews the legal test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and the requirement for the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision.

The court finds that, where the evidence clearly demonstrates the appellant cannot recognize the possibility of being affected by a mental condition, the CCB is not required to inquire into her actual appreciation of the treatment decision’s parameters.

The appeal is dismissed, and an anonymization order is granted.

The Township of Georgian Bay applied, without notice, for an order under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act permitting its Council members to participate in decision-making on certain matters despite declared conflicts.

The court granted the order, subject to judicial oversight for settlement approvals and indemnification issues, due to the impossibility of forming a quorum.

The decision discusses the statutory remedy of necessity and the appropriate controls to address conflicts in small municipalities.