Sidney N. Lederman

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Adoption Services to place their international adoption on hold.

The hold was initiated after the estranged sister of one of the applicants made historic sexual abuse allegations just days before the applicants were scheduled to travel to finalize the adoption.

The Director placed the hold and required a new home study without providing the applicants an opportunity to respond or detailing the allegations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Director breached procedural fairness by failing to give the applicants a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court also found the requirement for a further home study unreasonable given the unchallenged expert evidence refuting the risk.

The Director's decision was quashed and the original approval was reinstated.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an order of the Ontario Municipal Board granting a $60,000 costs premium to the respondent.

The Board had relied on a Court of Appeal decision that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that a risk premium cannot be exacted against an unsuccessful party.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's rules focus on the conduct of a party, not the result achieved or the risk assumed by counsel.

The appeal was allowed and the costs premium was set aside.

The applicant, who has Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability because the government provided residential group homes in his community for adults with cognitive disabilities, but not for medically challenged adults without cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the Commission's investigation or disclosure.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was reasonable, as the comparator group had different needs and the government is permitted to target social programs to specific disadvantaged groups.

Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.

The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.

The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.

The Chief Coroner for Ontario brought a motion to set aside an order requiring him to file a record of proceedings for a judicial review application concerning his refusal to order an inquest into a death.

The Divisional Court held that the Chief Coroner was not exercising a 'statutory power of decision' under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when deciding whether to hold an inquest, as he was determining the public interest rather than legal rights or eligibility for benefits.

Consequently, the Chief Coroner was not required to file a record of proceedings, and the motion was granted.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for judicial review of a Commission Panel's decision to exclude a statement made by the respondent licensee during an investigation into illegal drug use in horse racing.

The Panel had excluded the statement on the basis that the investigator wilfully deceived the respondent about his regulatory peril.

The Divisional Court found the Panel's decision unreasonable, as there was no evidentiary basis for the finding of wilful deceit, and quashed the decision, remitting the matter to the Commission for determination on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had dismissed ten applications for certification by the respondent union, finding it was not a construction industry trade union under s. 126(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also made obiter comments regarding s. 15 of the Act.

Because the applicant was successful before the Board in having the certification applications dismissed, the Divisional Court found the application for judicial review to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the Court declined to hear the application, noting there is no public interest in reviewing obiter comments that did not form the ratio of the Board's decision.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director to place a hold on an approval process for an international adoption.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the Director's decision, and ordered the Director to notify the relevant authorities, including the China Centre of Adoption Affairs and the Canadian Embassy, that the temporary hold was no longer in effect and that the approval of the proposed adoption was in full force and effect.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary a decision of Ferrier J., who had found no serious issue to be tried regarding the License Appeal Tribunal's 30-day suspension of their commercial vehicle operator's registration.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable or overriding error in Ferrier J.'s conclusions that trial counsel made a tactical decision and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable based on the safety record.

The motion to vary was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a co-owned property and requiring him to vacate the premises prior to the sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the order directing the sale on the open market, finding no authority to deny a co-owner the right to market exposure.

However, the court varied the order to allow the appellant to remain in possession until closing, noting the applications judge failed to consider the hardship of immediate eviction, the impracticalities of selling a vacant house, and the appellant's willingness to maintain mortgage and expense payments.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an undisclosed easement materially affected the respondent's use of the purchased property.

The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the easement significantly compromised the respondent's specific plans to construct a drive shed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor damages for unpaid invoices.

The trial judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for set-off related to water damage caused by the respondent and a disputed administrative mark-up fee.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by misapprehending uncontradicted evidence that established the respondent's negligence caused the water damage, the quantum of the resulting back-charge, and the respondent's failure to perform the services required to earn the mark-up fee.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a denial of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by receiving documentary evidence after the formal hearing without affording the tenant an opportunity to respond, and by failing to address this flaw on reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed, and a new hearing was directed before the Board, with instructions to consider new evidence regarding municipal restrictions.

The appellant appealed a tribunal decision finding he was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the disability issue, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no error of law in weighing the medical evidence and prognosis.

However, on consent of the respondent, the matter was remitted to the tribunal for a second hearing to address the appellant's human rights issue.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with one of her complaints due to delay and not to refer six other complaints to a Tribunal for lack of sufficient evidence.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable, that conciliation was not attempted, and that she was denied procedural fairness and subjected to bias by investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's discretionary decisions were reasonable, conciliation had been attempted, and there was no merit to the allegations of bias or denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, sought judicial review of a recommendation by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).

The applicant alleged that CADTH breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to publish draft rules for a pilot project and by allowing a competitor to participate, thereby giving the competitor an unfair market advantage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that CADTH had widely communicated the existence of the pilot project to the industry and that any manufacturer, including the applicant, could have volunteered to participate.

The court concluded that CADTH's conduct was transparent, even-handed, and reasonable, and that there was no breach of the applicant's legitimate expectations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision declaring he had no right to sue his employer, Ontario Hydro, for injuries allegedly sustained in a nuclear accident.

The applicant argued that the federal Nuclear Liability Act created a statutory tort that ousted the provincial Workers' Compensation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Nuclear Liability Act does not create a federal statutory tort and that federal jurisdiction over nuclear power does not oust provincial jurisdiction over employees' compensation schemes.

The court confirmed that the applicant must pursue his remedies under the provincial workers' compensation scheme.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant, a teacher, was removed from the occasional teachers' list after sharing conspiracy theories with students.

The union agreed to investigate a grievance but required a psychiatric assessment, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the governing legislation permits the Board to use a consultation process rather than a formal hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that their land, which was severed in 2000, constituted 'eligible property' for the 2001 taxation year under the Municipal Act.

The appellants argued that the relevant statutory definition, which came into force on January 1, 2001, should only apply to severances occurring after that date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application of the definition to a 2000 severance was implicit by the necessary operation of the municipal tax regime, as 2001 was the first year taxes could be determined on the newly severed parcels.