Sunil S. Mathai

The respondents moved to strike or quash portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal, specifically a request for a declaration and a ground of appeal relating to justiciability and standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, deferring the jurisdictional issue to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants' cross-motion to have the appeal case-managed was granted, with costs of the motion awarded to the appellants.

The Superintendent appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking the registration of a private career college.

The Divisional Court had found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the adjudicator's statement that the self-represented principal was 'misleading the Tribunal' and her irrelevant questioning about his possible ties to a terrorist organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of bias, rejecting the argument that the bias claim was waived, and affirming that a new hearing was the appropriate remedy despite the strength of the Superintendent's case.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's refusal to recuse himself from a police disciplinary hearing.

The Commissioner alleged the adjudicator's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the adjudicator should have been named as a respondent and the Commissioner lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the adjudicator's conduct did not meet the high threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias and the procedural issues raised in the cross-appeal were without merit.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the revocation of their registration as a private career college.

The appellants argued that the adjudicator's comments and questions during the 25-day hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator's interventions, including accusing the self-represented appellant of misleading the tribunal and improperly questioning him about ties to a terrorist organization, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a re-hearing.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued it should be exempt from costs as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicant had a material interest in the proceeding, as success would have halted an underlying police disciplinary hearing and an abuse of process motion against the applicant.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $33,434.93.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review to prohibit an adjudicator from continuing to hear a police discipline matter, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondents moved to quash the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the respondents were properly named.

On the merits, the Court reviewed several instances of the adjudicator's conduct, including remarks about wasted time, rulings on disclosure of counsel's notes, and comments regarding the timing of the recusal motion and the involvement of the Attorney General.

The Court concluded that, viewed contextually and cumulatively, the adjudicator's actions and remarks did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Commissioner of the OPP sought to stay a disciplinary hearing pending an application for judicial review based on a reasonable apprehension of bias by the adjudicator.

A motion judge denied the stay, finding the Commissioner lacked standing and failed to meet the test for a stay.

On review, the Divisional Court set aside the motion judge's order, holding that the Commissioner has standing to seek judicial review on procedural fairness grounds and that the proper test for a stay was met, as irreparable harm would result from continuing a hearing tainted by an apprehension of bias.

The stay was granted and the respondents' cross-motion to quash the application was dismissed.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to uphold the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy without adequate notice or a phase-in period, effectively locking producers into the market and causing significant financial losses.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments to the appellants.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police moved to stay a disciplinary proceeding against two senior officers, alleging bias by the Adjudicator.

The motion was brought during an abuse of process hearing while the Commissioner was testifying.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Adjudicator's comments did not demonstrate bias but rather frustration with the prosecution's conduct.

The Court also noted that the Commissioner likely lacked standing to seek judicial review of a decision made by his own delegate in the disciplinary process.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy immediately without adequate notice or consultation, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to manage their business affairs.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments collected from the appellants.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for an unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The Commission previously revoked the dismissal and substituted a finding of guilt.

In this decision on penalty, the Commission considered the complexity of the law regarding the implied licence to knock and its revocation, noting the officer acted in good faith but made a wrong decision.

The Commission ordered the officer to participate in a critical incident debrief to help incorporate the findings into training procedures and issued a formal reprimand pursuant to the Police Services Act.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful arrest.

The Commission previously revoked the dismissal and substituted a finding of guilt, noting the officer misunderstood the law regarding the revocation of an implied licence to knock.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against the officer's junior status, his mistaken but good faith belief in the lawfulness of his actions, and his subsequent positive performance.

The Commission ordered the officer to participate in a critical incident debrief to help incorporate the findings into training procedures and issued a formal reprimand.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The incident occurred when the officer attended the appellant's residence to investigate a complaint and a physical altercation ensued at the door.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by concluding that the implied licence to knock could not be withdrawn by clearly understood demeanour.

Since the officer acknowledged knowing he was not welcome from first contact, he became a trespasser by remaining on the property, rendering the subsequent arrest unlawful.

The appeal was allowed and a finding of guilt for misconduct was substituted.