The Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim against the defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on the grounds that it was plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff had claimed damages against the College for damages caused by the alleged malpractice of a physician who was a member of the College. The plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleged that the College did not properly investigate the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the physician and that its investigation process was not transparent.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Privilege and immunity – Physicians and surgeons – Governance – Investigations – Judicial review – Disclosure – Evidence – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process Kwabanza v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2012] O.J. No. 4966, ...

A party to a settlement (Mr. D’Ettorre) applied for judicial review of a decision made by a “delegate” from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. The Delegate held that an assignment of Statutory Accident Benefits was not valid. The Respondent, Coachman Insurance Company, succeeded in having the application for review dismissed.

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Financial Services Commission – Arbitration and award – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory provisions – Interpretation – Remedies –  Damages – Assignment – Validity – Settlements – Trial – Definition D’Ettorre v. Coachman Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 4443, 2012 ONSC 3613, Ontario Superior ...

The Court of Appeal held that the College’s failure to provide sufficient notice to a registrant regarding a complaint against him did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness as the College’s duty is only invoked once an inquiry lawfully begins. Further, there were no exceptional circumstances which justified a judicial review while the registrant had an alternate, statutory remedy which he declined to exercise.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Massage Therapists – Massage Therapists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Investigations – Judicial review – Availability – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Notice requirements – Appeals – Remedies – Alternative remedies ...

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded the former owners of expropriated property $3,700,000 for the market value of the expropriated property and $767,000 for the loss in value of properties not expropriated. This decision was upheld by the Divisional Court. The City of Windsor (the “City”) successfully appealed the decision of the Divisional Court which upheld the decision made by the Ontario Municipal Board (the “Board”).

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Expropriation – Planning and zoning – Property assessment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Damages Windsor (City) v. Paciorka Leaseholds Ltd., [2012] O.J. No. 2822, 2012 ONCA 431, Ontario Court of Appeal, June 22, 2012, D.H. Doherty and H.S. ...

The proper way to attack decisions made by administrative bodies is through judicial review. It is not permissible to circumvent this process by dressing up a review of a decision of an administrative tribunal as an application falling under the rules of civil procedure.

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative  tribunals – Police Review Board – Police  –  Governance – Criminal records request – Judicial review  –  Administrative decisions –  Jurisdiction of court – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness J.N. v. Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2012] O.J. No. 2809, 2012 ONCA 428, Ontario Court of ...

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Adjudicator”) found that a police constable, Michael Shaw, (“Shaw”) discriminated against a Canada Post carrier, Ronald Phipps (“Phipps”) contrary to the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990 c.19 (the “Code”). Shaw’s appeal from the judicial review upholding the Adjudicator’s decision was dismissed.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Adjudication – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Police officers – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Toronto (City) Police Service v. Phipps, [2012] OJ 2601, 2012 ONCA 155, Ontario Court of ...

The Court of Appeal set aside an order for treatment forthwith pursuant to s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code for the purposes of making a detained accused fit for trial. The Court held the order to be improper on the basis that the hospitals did not have the necessary facilities available and did not provide consent to the order pursuant to s. 672.62 of the Code. The consent requirement in the Code did not violate s. 7 of the Charter despite the fact that concerns regarding the patient’s liberty and security of the person were triggered when such an order was made. The Court held that even if an accused’s rights are deprived, the consent requirement ensures that the deprivation occurs in a manner that accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Mental health facility – Treatment plans –  Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life, liberty or security of the person – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review –  Compliance with legislation –  Procedural requirements and fairness Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Ontario, ...

A person may bring a legal proceeding to challenge the decision of a public or quasi-public body only if the person’s private rights are directly affected by the decision, or the person is exceptionally prejudiced by the decision in a manner different from the general public. In the alternative, a Court has discretion to grant public interest standing, where a party does not have personal standing. A group opposing the decision of the Director, Ministry of the Environment to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for the construction and operation of a Class 4 wind facility in the Township of Mapletown, did not meet the test for public interest standing as it did not establish that a genuine interest in the issues raised. As well, PMI had an appeal right to the Environmental Review Tribunal, which it had exercised.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Environmental matters – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Public interest – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation Preserve Mapleton Inc. v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), [2012] O.J. No. 2037, 2012 ONSC 2115, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April ...

By enrolling in a university, students become subject to the institution’s discretion in resolving academic matters. Courts will only interfere in the core academic functions of universities in cases of “manifest unfairness”. Based on these principles, the Court denied an application on judicial review to set aside a decision of the Senate Appeals Committee of the University of Alberta, which upheld the Residency Program Committee’s requirement that a postgraduate medical student in cardiac surgery enter a six-month remediation period prior to entering her fourth year of residency. Given that the resident’s right to continue her profession and employment was not at stake, she had no right to call or cross-examine witnesses in the academic proceedings.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Medical residents – Evaluation of residents – Physicians and Surgeons – Training requirements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Witnesses Alsaigh v. University of Ottawa, [2012] O.J. No. 2027, 2012 ONSC 2313, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

In considering an application for registration and assessing whether an applicant met substantially equivalent registration requirements, the accreditation committee of the Ontario College of Teachers was required to provide substantive and tenable reasons for its decision

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Teachers – Permits and licences – Training requirements – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons Saba v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2012] O.J. No. 1958, 2012 ONSC 1734, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 16, 2012, K.E. Swinton, P.C. Hennessy and A.H. ...