The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upholding an award by a NAFTA arbitration tribunal which had found that Mexico had engaged in discriminatory conduct by granting tax rebates to domestic companies that were denied to a company engaged in a similar business owned by a U.S. citizen (“Karpa”). The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the arbitration tribunal was entitled to a high degree of deference and Mexico had not shown any basis upon which to interfere with the arbitration award.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – NAFTA – Tax rebates – Companies – Less favourable treatment – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure United Mexican States v. Karpa, [2005] O.J. No. 16, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, D.H. Doherty, R.P. Armstrong ...

A physician (“Mussani”) found guilty of sexual abuse by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) challenged the constitutionality of the zero tolerance/mandatory revocation scheme governing discipline for specific acts of sexual conduct between health professionals and their patients under Ontario’s Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”). The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Mandatory Revocation Provisions of the Code.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Sexual acts – Penalties – Mandatory suspensions – Constitutionality – Charter of Rights – Application to disciplinary proceedings Mussani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. ...

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed this appeal of the Divisional Court’s decision on a judicial review of a decision of Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commissioner’s decision with respect to section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the test to be applied when the head of a Provincial institution, who cannot disclose the contents of a record because that would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, seeks to respond to a request for information by refusing to confirm or deny the very existence of the record.

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Privacy commissioner – Disclosure – Invasion of personal privacy – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 4813, Ontario Court of Appeal, ...

The court found a reasonable apprehension of bias to exist in circumstances where a physician testified at a College disciplinary hearing as both a fact and expert witness and was subsequently appointed to be a member of the College Discipline Committee shortly before the decision pertaining to the hearing at which she gave evidence was released

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Committee members – Impartiality – Judicial review – Witnesses – Bias – Disclosure – Procedural requirements and fairness Li v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. ...

The court declined to exercise its habeas corpus jurisdiction upon an application by an inmate in administrative segregation on the grounds that there were other alternative means by which the Applicant may have contested his detention

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Discipline of inmates – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Alternative remedies Condo v. Bath Institution, [2004] O.J. No. 3760, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, September 14, 2004, Polowin J. The Applicant was serving a five-year prison sentence in a medium security institution. He had been placed in administrative segregation, pursuant to ...

The court held that the application judge had erred by applying a standard of correctness on review of an Acting Park Superintendent’s interpretation of a park management plan and by finding that the Applicant (Respondent on appeal) was denied procedural fairness in relation to its request for use of a private road located in a provincial park. At its highest, the applicable standard for review was reasonableness, and the Superintendent’s interpretation was not unreasonable.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Park Superintendent – Road access – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Procedural requirements and fairness 2016596 Ontario Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), [2004] O.J. No. 3922, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 28, 2004, Simmons and Armstrong JJ.A. and Lane J. (ad ...

A former licensed member (“Padovan”) of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors (the “Association”) brought an action against the Association claiming damages resulting from disciplinary proceedings instituted against him by the Association. The Association was successful in a motion for summary judgment where the court found that Padovan had not satisfied even the modest preliminary evidentiary burden to establish bias, harassment, malice or mala fides on the part of the Association.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Land Surveyors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – No reasonable cause of action – Bias – Evidence Padovan v. Assn. of Ontario Land Surveyors, [2004] O.J. No. 2921, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 7, 2004, Stach J. Padovan was the subject of ...

Costello appealed the decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) which found that he had acted as an “advisor” without being registered to do so under section 25(1)(c) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990 C. s.5 (the “Act”). The court employed a standard of review of reasonableness and found that the Commission’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Personal interests – Public interest – Stock brokers and advisors – Disciplinary proceedings – Advisor – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Costs Costello v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2004] O.J. No. 2972, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July ...

The court dismissed a motion to quash an application for judicial review on the basis that the Applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a full hearing before a panel of the University Discipline Tribunal. The court allowed the Applicant’s cross-motion to stay the hearing of the Discipline Tribunal pending the resolution of the application for judicial review.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Universities – Student discipline – Remedies – Alternative remedies – Judicial review application – Striking out – Bias – Jurisdiction – Stay of proceedings Freeman-Maloy v. York University, [2004] O.J. No. 3123, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 20, 2004, Epstein J. The Applicant was a student activist at York University who had engaged ...

A former employee of Metroland who suffered a non-work related injury, was accommodated in a more sedentary position but later was unable to reach the second floor to comfortably continue work (“Losenno”), was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) wherein they held that they would not refer his complaint of discrimination in employment to a Board of Inquiry for a full hearing

24. August 2004 0
Losenno v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] O.J. No. 2667, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, June 21, 2004, O’Driscoll, Lane and Jennings JJ. Losenno began working for Metroland as a press helper. He later became a rollman’s helper, which involved physical labour. He injured his knee off the job and Metroland accommodated ...