Other Tribunals - SCJ

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming that police misconduct complaints were unsubstantiated following her arrests and stayed criminal charges.

The court held that the Director's decision was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and rejected arguments for correctness review based on an alleged implicit declaration of guilt.

The reasons emphasized the distinction between reasonable grounds for arrest or charge and criminal guilt, and confirmed that stayed proceedings not recommenced within one year are deemed never to have commenced under s. 579(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found no reviewable error in the Director's treatment of the evidentiary record, including the arrest for breach of undertaking.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming he lacked capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued he was not provided adequate information about the treatment and that the Board failed to recognize his capacity fluctuated.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board made no palpable and overriding error.

The evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant's inability to recognize his illness prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed treatment.

The defendant sought to schedule an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act in a Small Claims Court action.

The court, relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Laurentide Kitchens Inc. v. Homestars Inc., ruled that anti-SLAPP motions are incompatible with the summary procedures and objectives of the Small Claims Court, regardless of whether they are heard by a deputy judge, administrative judge, or a Superior Court judge sitting as a Small Claims Court judge.

Consequently, the anti-SLAPP motion was not scheduled.

Instead, the court scheduled a motion to transfer the existing Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice, allowing the defendant to pursue the anti-SLAPP relief in the appropriate forum.

This endorsement clarifies the administrative nature of scheduling urgent matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession provides guidelines for urgent services, not statutory rules, and that the scheduling process is an administrative function.

Submissions on the merits or the issue of urgency are not required or helpful once a matter has been scheduled, as they clog court resources and are not part of the legal dispute between parties.

The court scheduled the applicant's proposed matter for an urgent case conference, dismissing the respondent's subsequent submissions against urgency.

This endorsement addresses multiple cross-motions following a prior order by Price J. The respondent sought a contempt order against the applicant for failing to sell her interest in the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a stay of the sale provision, lifting of a stay on equalization payment enforcement, dismissal of the respondent's Small Claims Court action, directions on communication, permission for email service, and a restriction on the respondent initiating further proceedings.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, granted the stay of the sale provision, and granted the communication and email service requests.

It dismissed the request to lift the stay on equalization payment and to dismiss the Small Claims Court action due to lack of jurisdiction.

The request to restrict further proceedings was also dismissed.

The issue of household contents was referred back to Price J.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her attending physicians' finding that she was incapable of managing her property.

The appellant argued the assessment was flawed and that her limited income negated the need for property management.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision.

The court found that the appellant's delusional beliefs regarding property ownership and marriage prevented her from understanding information relevant to her housing and discharge planning, thereby satisfying the test for incapacity.

The appellant, an inpatient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable with respect to treatment with anti-psychotic medication and incapable of managing his property.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence and reached unreasonable conclusions.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Board's findings of mixed fact and law.

The court found that the Board's conclusions regarding the appellant's inability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decisions, due to his denial of illness and paranoid delusions, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a patient at a mental health centre, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board.

A teleconference was scheduled to set dates for factums and the appeal hearing, but the self-represented appellant failed to attend.

The court ordered deadlines for the filing of factums and scheduled a motion requested by the respondent for an Interim Treatment Order under section 19 of the Health Care Consent Act.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of her horses and a goat by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) due to chronic distress.

The Superior Court of Justice conducted a new hearing and found that the animals were in distress, lacking proper food, water, and veterinary care, and that the appellant had failed to comply with previous OSPCA orders.

The court upheld the removal and ordered the appellant to pay $62,554.53 in maintenance costs, deducting the costs for two horses that were mistakenly omitted from the removal notice.

Two applicants sought judicial review of municipal by-laws implementing a volume-based solid waste user fee and associated rebate program introduced by the City of Toronto.

The applicants argued that the waste collection charge was in substance an unlawful tax affecting provincial tax ratio rules and that the rebate constituted an impermissible redistribution of property taxes contrary to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The court held that the waste charge was a valid user fee because a sufficient nexus existed between the amount collected and the cost of providing waste services.

The court further held that the rebate was properly characterized as a municipal grant authorized under s. 83 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 rather than a tax rebate.

The applications to quash the relevant by-law provisions were dismissed.

An application was brought seeking a declaration interpreting a municipal zoning by-law to determine whether an existing church could expand its use onto an adjacent parcel of agricultural land once the parcels were merged.

The municipality argued that the by-law permitted only “existing churches” on lands where such uses existed at the time the by-law was passed, thereby preventing expansion onto new lots.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the court examined the wording, purpose, and scheme of the by-law.

The court held that the exemption for “existing churches” applied to the building rather than to a specific lot and that the by-law did not expressly restrict expansion onto adjoining lands.

A declaration was granted permitting the merged lands to be used for church purposes.