A registrant midwife, Ms. B, who had filed a mandatory report to the College of Midwives of Ontario (the “College”) outlining the circumstances in which an associate and fellow College registrant midwife, Ms. CH, had left Ms. B’s midwifery practice, was not entitled to a copy of the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) decision in respect of Ms. CH or a complete record of the investigatory records, even though Ms. B intended to apply for judicial review of the ICRC’s decision in respect of Ms. CH

24. April 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Midwives – Investigations – Midwives – Professional governance – Reporting requirements – Judicial review – Parties – Disclosure of third party records – Compliance with legislation Batacharya v. College of Midwives of Ontario, [2012] O.J. No. 697, 2012 ONCA 1072, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

The Ontario Divisional Court quashed the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal that a librarian discriminated against the black complainants by asking them in a lawyers’ lounge for the exclusive use by lawyers and law students to confirm they were lawyers. The Tribunal erred in finding a prima facie case of discrimination. There must be some link, or nexus, between membership in a protected group and the allegedly discriminatory act. A complainant must do more than identify himself as a member of a protected group and point to an act that negatively impacted on him. A complainant must establish a causal link. In this case, there was no evidence of distinction or differential treatment or that such treatment was motivated by race or colour. By failing to require complainants to satisfy the nexus requirement, the Tribunal erred by reversing the burden of proof and placed an impossible onus on the applicants to disprove discrimination.

24. April 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Peel Law Assn. v. Pieters, [2012] O.J. No. 684, 2012 ONSC 1048, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 13, 2012, S. Chapnik, P.B. Hockin and ...

The Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”) acted unreasonably in its decision to review a decision in respect of multiple physician registrants listed, even though the complainant had withdrawn her review request against all but one of the registrants

24. April 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health Professions Appeal and Review Board – Complaint – Multiple registrants – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Statutory provisions – Compliance with legislation – Public interest – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Wilcock v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and ...

The Appellant funeral director unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Respondent Board’s License Appeal Tribunal (LAT). The LAT had decided to revoke the Appellant’s funeral director license.

27. March 2012 0
Administrative Law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Funeral Services – License Appeal Tribunal – Funeral directors – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review –  Bias – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Johal v. Ontario (Board of Funeral Services), [2011] O.J. No. 6226, 2011 ONSC 7525, ...

The Applicants, two high school students, unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of their private school’s decision to expel them for marijuana use

27. March 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – School boards – Schools – Suspension of students – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of court – No reasonable cause of action W.W. v. Lakefield College School, [2012] O.J. No. 375, 2012 ONSC 577, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 27, 2012, P. Lauwers J. The Applicants ...

The duty of fairness dictates that a decision maker cannot be involved in every level of an applicant’s proceedings. Such involvement creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. This can apply even if the ultimate issue becomes moot.

28. February 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Evaluation of professors – Judicial review – Bias – Mootness – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Said v. University of Ottawa, [2011] O.J. No. 6043, 2011 ONSC 6179, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, December 30, 2011, J.D. Cunningham ...

Although the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “ICRC”) is a screening committee and not a quasi-judicial one, it still owed a disclosure obligation to the applicant member of the College, a registered nurse, which required it to provide the applicant with notice of the Registrar’s report of its investigation, notice of the substance of the allegations against her and an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the allegations. In this case, the College agreed that the decision of the ICRC should be quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the ICRC for fresh determination, with directions that the applicant be allowed to make submissions in respect of seven witness statements.

25. January 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Nurses – Investigations – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Disclosure – Evidence – Witnesses – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction Ajao v. College of Nurses of Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 5280, 2011 ...

The application by a corporation to dismiss, for delay, a prospective employee’s application for judicial review of a human rights tribunal’s decision was allowed where the prospective employee did not file for a judicial review until 26 months following the decision and had no cogent explanation for the delay

25. January 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Delay – Limitation of actions De Pelham v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), [2011] O.J. No. 5459, 2011 ONSC 7006, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 25, 2011, A. Hoy J. Mytrak Health Systems Inc. (“Mytrak”) was a small ...

A physician’s application for judicial review of the decision of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care “and/or” the general manager of Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) denying him payment for approximately $250,000 for medical services billed in 2002, 2003, and 2004 was set aside on the basis of delay. The original denial occurred in 2004 and the last letter denying his request for reconsideration was dated February 2008. The judicial review application was served February 2011 and perfected April 2011. While the physician had distractions, there was no satisfactory explanation provided for the excessive delay in bringing the judicial review application and there was evidence of actual prejudice to the respondent.

25. January 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial – Judicial review application – Delay – Test Rosenhek v. Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 5186, 2011 ONSC 3785, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 17, 2011, D.R. Aston J. Dr. Rosenhek initiated an application for judicial review of “the decision” of the Ministry of Health and ...

The respondent registrant appealed a College decision to the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (“HPARB”) and made a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about the College’s decision. The HPARB upheld the College’s decision and the College then applied to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to have her complaint dismissed. The Tribunal refused to dismiss it and the College applied for judicial review and obtained an order quashing the Tribunal’s decision.

27. December 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Nurses – Human Rights Tribunal – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Public interest – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review – Appeals – Investigations – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Privative clauses ...