Articles

Association of Professional Engineers v Rew is an appeal to the Divisional Court by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the PEO) from a decision of a Discipline Panel of the PEO. This case demonstrates that quality of reasons can play an important role in determining whether an administrative decision should be upheld even where the reasons do permit review.

In Longueépée v. University of Waterloo, 2020 ONCA 830, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the University of Waterloo had discriminated against Roch Longueépée when it refused him admission on the basis of his previous grades, which were the result of undiagnosed and unaccommodated disabilities. This decision is significant not only for its contribution to human rights jurisprudence, but also for how it applies the administrative law principles set out by the Supreme Court in Vavilov.

This article examines a recent appeal of a professional regulation decision before the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan, Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Association. This decision is noteworthy not only as a high-profile post-Vavilov decision in the context of professional regulation, but also as an illustration of the potential conflict between the regulation of a professional's "off-duty" conduct and the professional's right to freedom of expression under the Charter.

Ontario’s midwives have won another round of litigation, in a pay equity saga stretching back almost a decade. Late last month, the Divisional Court rejected the province’s Judicial Review application of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”). This article summarizes the Divisional Court's decision.

Recent decision signals a plaintiff-friendly reading of Ontario's new Crown liability statute

This was an appeal of Jose Schoelly (“Mr. Schoelly” or the “Member”), a registered massage therapist, with respect to the outcome of discipline proceeding before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists (“Discipline Committee” or the “Panel”).

In this case, the Applicant, Sunrise North Senior Living, was seeking an order in the nature of mandamus compelling the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality (Sheriff) to comply with an order requiring the eviction of the respondent Rohan Salmon (Salmon) from a unit in Sunrise North. This case provides a clear analysis of requirements to obtain an order in the nature of mandamus, in particular, discusses the issue of the balance of convenience which was a key factor in this case.

Mattar v. The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, 2020 ONSC 403 (Div Ct) is a decision of the Divisional Court, released only a couple of months after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. As one of the early decisions to consider the new doctrine of responsive justification, Mattar is one example of how Vavilov may motivate reviewing courts to require better quality administrative tribunal reasons.

In the decision of Intercounty Tennis Association v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 1632, the Divisional Court held that applying the revised rules of judicial review established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 meant that patent unreasonableness in the Ontario Human Rights Code was akin to reasonableness, and dismissed an application for judicial review concluding that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s finding of discrimination was reasonable.

In this article, Rachel Weiner summarizes the revised framework in Vavilov, identifies changes and uncertainties regarding the standard of review, and argues that the reasonableness standard is not significantly altered.