An application by the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“CLO”), for judicial review of an Order and a reconsideration decision issued by an adjudicator of the Respondent Information and Privacy Commissioner, to the effect that the senior adjudicator, David Goodis, be precluded from participating in the judicial review of the Order and subsequent reconsideration decision issued by him regarding a request by Jane Doe, a former client of CLO, for the file created while she was a child client of CLO and where CLO acted as her litigation guardian in two motor vehicle accident cases. The motion was dismissed and the Court considered and dismissed the judicial review application itself.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Privacy commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Statutory interpretation – Adjudication – Crown counsel – Definition – Crown litigation privilege – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] O.J. No. ...

The Appellant appealed the reference hearing judge’s decision to refuse to grant a firearms licence. In December of 1997, the Appellant was issued a Firearms Acquisition Certificate valid to December 2002. As a result of an allegation of historical sexual assault, the Chief Firearms Officer examined the Appellant’s criminal record, which included convictions for assaults 13 and 18 years earlier. His licence to possess firearms was revoked on the grounds that he had “demonstrated a history of behaviour that includes violence”. The Appellant applied for a reference before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. The decision was upheld and he appealed that decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who held that the Appellant had not satisfied the court that cancelling the revocation was not justified.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Firearms registration – Firearms – Licences – Revocation – Evidence – Prior criminal charges – Public safety – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Retrospective operation R. v. D.L.B., [2003] O.J. No. 2471, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 12, 2003, Durno J. 45-year-old D.B. had used firearms for a long time. In 1992, ...

The court, on judicial review, found that the interpretation given by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) to subsection 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”), which allowed an institution to deny the requester the right to know whether a record exists, even if it does not, was “unsupported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination” (Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.J. No. 17). In the result, the Commissioner’s decision was set aside and the Ministry’s decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records in relation to the requests was confirmed.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – 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), [2003] O.J. No. 2601, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 26, 2003, Blair, Lang and C. ...

Devlin successfully appealed the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which upheld a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspending Devlin’s driver’s licence pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 for medical reasons.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Medical condition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical Advisory Committee – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Devlin v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2003] O.J. No. 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 26, 2003, Pitt J. Devlin had experienced a single ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) appealed the decision of the Divisional Court, quashing a newly Amended Notice of Hearing on the basis that the Registrar for the College had proffered the Amended Notice of Hearing in the middle of a disciplinary hearing in the absence of statutory authority to do so. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Divisional Court upheld. The issue raised on appeal was whether the Registrar of the College had the jurisdiction to refer new allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence of a member of the College to the Discipline Committee after a discipline hearing had already commenced against that member.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Fairness – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Amendment of notice of hearing – Jurisdiction Henderson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 2213, Ontario Court of Appeal, June 5, 2003, Weiler, Rosenberg and Armstrong, JJ.A. Allegations of professional ...

An appeal by the litigation guardian of a student (“Zachary”) from the Order of a trial judge dismissing an application for judicial review of the School Board’s decision to transfer Zachary to a different school for safety reasons while an appeal from the decision to change his placement under provisions relating to exceptional pupils was still outstanding. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – School boards – Transfer of students – Safety of students – Judicial review application – Mootness Bonnah (Litigation guardian of) v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, [2003] O.J. No. 1156, Ontario Court of Appeal, April 8, 2003, Doherty, Austin and Charron JJ.A. The court stated that it would not normally hear moot appeals, but ...

An appeal by a psychiatric patient (“Sousa”) from the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board, in which they found her incapable in respect of her required treatment for various mental and physical disorders, was dismissed on the basis that the Board’s decision was substantiated by the facts, and no error of fact or law was discerned.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Consent to treatment – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection Sousa v. Klukach, [2003] O.J. No. 779, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 27, 2003, Greer J. Sousa was an involuntary resident of the Clarke Site of the Centre for Addiction and ...

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (the “AOCP”) was unsuccessful in its appeal of decisions made by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had a statutory authority to “stand in the shoes” of the Marketing Commission and was entitled, on a review of a Commission decision, to establish specific pricing formulas and to order the Commission to amend its regulation to implement such pricing formulas.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Assn. of Ontario Chicken Processors v. Ontario (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal), [2003] O.N. No. 330, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 31, 2003, Blair, Carnwath and J. ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...

The applicants’ employer unsuccessfully sought an Order removing the arbitrator of a constructive dismissal claim and declaring void an arbitration between the applicant and the respondent employee on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias. The allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias was based on a lawyer in the arbitrator’s law firm obtaining information from a client and writing a letter on his behalf to a subsidiary of the parent corporation of a party to the arbitration. No reasonable apprehension of bias was found and the application was characterized as an opportunistic attack on the arbitration and attempt to derail the arbitration. Costs on a partial indemnity scale were awarded to the respondent to sanction the applicants’ conduct.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Test A.T. Kearney Ltd. v. Harrison, [2003] O.J. No. 438, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 10, 2003, Lax J. Following a 26-day arbitration concerning a wrongful dismissal claim, the employer applied pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991 S.O. ...