Articles

About ArticlesThe below articles are published by the Administrative Law Section of the Ontario Bar Association. Members are encouraged to submit articles.  About Articles

Editor: Patricia Harper

Today
Today

Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms that University Discriminated by Relying Exclusively on Grades-based Admissions Standards Where Applicant’s Grades Resulted from Unaccommodated Disabilities

  • February 06, 2021
  • Anna Rosenbluth

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.

Education Law, Student Forum

Right to Post? The Intersection of Professional Regulation, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression

  • November 26, 2020
  • Patricia Harper

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.

Administrative Law, Student Forum

Victory for Midwives as Divisional Court Dismisses Ontario’s Judicial Review Application

  • July 08, 2020
  • Saba Ahmad

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.

Administrative Law, Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Law, Student Forum

Schoelly v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 1348

  • May 05, 2020
  • Patricia Harper, partner, Keel Cottrelle LLP

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”).

Administrative Law, Student Forum

Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd. v. the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York & Rohan Salmon (Jan 23 2020)

  • May 05, 2020
  • Edgar-André Montigny, Montigny Law

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.

Administrative Law, Student Forum

Responsive Justification and Sufficiency of Reasons: Mattar v The National Dental Examining Board of Canada

  • May 05, 2020
  • Rachel Weiner

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.

Administrative Law, Student Forum

Patently Unreasonable Held to Have Same Meaning as Reasonableness

  • May 05, 2020
  • Christopher Wirth, partner, and Sakshi Chadha, articling student, Keel Cottrelle LLP

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.

Administrative Law, Student Forum

Vavilov: A New Framework for a New Decade of Judicial Review

  • January 13, 2020
  • Rachel Weiner

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.

Administrative Law, Public Sector Lawyers, Student Forum

Public Library’s Termination of Rental Agreement Not Subject to Judicial Review

  • January 07, 2020
  • Christopher Wirth, partner, and Sakshi Chadha, articling student, Keel Cottrelle LLP

In Weld v Ottawa Public Library, 2019 ONSC 5358, the Ontario Divisional Court (the “Court”) found that a decision by a Public Library to terminate a room rental agreement was not subject to judicial review as it was not made in a public capacity.

Administrative Law, Student Forum