V. Crystal

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal refusing to recuse its adjudicators for alleged bias.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was an abuse of process because the tribunal proceedings were ongoing.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.

The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty physical altercation with his estranged wife.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the OCPC reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer properly admitted hearsay evidence, correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct, and imposed a penalty within the appropriate range.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought to stay a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) hearing pending a judicial review application.

The municipality argued that the HRTO's administrative delay and the death of its key witness caused irreparable harm, and that the HRTO had refused to hear its motion to stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay application, finding it premature because the HRTO had indicated it would address the motion to stay at the upcoming hearing.

The court reiterated that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial review is sought.

The moving parties, who were appealing an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, brought a motion to be referred to by pseudonyms in the court proceeding.

The eviction stemmed from the moving parties' inappropriate conduct toward other tenants regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and masks.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or that the information was so sensitive as to be an affront to dignity.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.