This case is a judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) to suspend the real estate broker’s licence of the respondent, Mr. Jolly. The Divisional Court found that RECO had failed to provide Mr. Jolly with procedural fairness and quashed the suspension.
The court held that RECO had not provided Mr. Jolly with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him before suspending his licence, as required by its own rules and regulations. The court noted that while it was open to RECO to suspend Mr. Jolly’s licence pending further investigation, it was obliged to provide him with an opportunity to respond before doing so.
The court also held that RECO had failed to provide Mr. Jolly with adequate reasons for its decision, as required by law. The court noted that while RECO had provided some reasons for its decision, they were inadequate and did not explain why it had chosen to suspend rather than revoke or impose other sanctions on Mr. Jolly’s licence.
In light of these findings, the court quashed RECO’s decision and ordered it to reconsider the matter in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
- […]  In this decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s request for costs on the basis that s. 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA â€) limits the authority to award costs to matters involving conduct that is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or done in bad faith.   [9] Section 32 of the SPPA states that, unless an Act expressly provides otherwise, the provisions of the SPPA prevail over the provisions of that Act in the event of a conflict.   [18] According to the Applicant, the “fatal flaw†in the reasoning of the Tribunal is that it ignores and gives no meaning to the words “under this section†in s. 17.1(2) and (3) of the SPPA . Â
The best way to learn about the history of a country is to read books and articles written by historians. Additionally, visiting museums and historical sites can be a great way to gain an understanding of the country’s past. It is also important to talk to people who have lived in the country for many years, as they may have stories or insights that are not available in books or other sources. Finally, watching documentaries and films about the country’s history can provide a more visual understanding of its past.
This case involves an application by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) to the Law Society Tribunal (LST) for an order that would prevent a lawyer, Mr. Isaac, from filing any further applications or motions without leave of the LST. The LSO argued that Mr. Isaac had engaged in vexatious litigation and was abusing the process of the LST.
The motion panel found that Mr. Isaac had engaged in vexatious litigation and granted the LSO’s application for an order preventing him from filing any further applications or motions without leave of the LST. The panel also ordered that Mr. Isaac be suspended from practising law until he had been reinstated by a bencher appointed by the LSO.
The panel noted that while it was not necessary to make such an order in this case, it was appropriate given Mr. Isaac’s history of vexatious litigation and his refusal to accept responsibility for his actions. The panel also noted that such an order would serve as a deterrent to other lawyers who might be tempted to engage in similar behaviour in future cases before the LST.
-  He relied on s. 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22 (the SPPA ).   [65] Section 23(1) may be contrasted against s. 25.0.1 (a) of the SPPA , which provides that:   [69] In sum, taking into account the purpose of s. 23(1) , the different language chosen by the legislature for ss. 23(1) and 25.0.1 (a), and the requirement that the SPPA be liberally construed to “secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits,†I conclude that a Â
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue and throw it away immediately, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
of the parties — Ontario Nurses’ Association — Director under the Occupational Health and Safety Act — application for a review of an order issued by the Director — issue of whether the order was reasonable in all the circumstances — decision to dismiss the application.
-  36. The Board has jurisdiction to close the CMH to the public pursuant to section 9 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA â€).   39. Subsection 9(1) of the SPPA creates a statutory presumption that oral hearings conducted by the Board are open to the public.   A party seeking to rebut that presumption and close a hearing to the public bears a heavy onus of demonstrating that doing so fits squarely within subsection 9(1) (b) of the SPPA . Â
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
This case is a judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) to deny an application for registration as a real estate broker. The applicant, Mr. Jolly, had previously been registered as a salesperson with RECO but his registration was revoked in 2014 due to misconduct. He then applied for registration as a broker but his application was denied on the basis that he did not meet the criteria set out in the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 (REBBA).
Mr. Jolly sought judicial review of RECO’s decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Jolly’s application for judicial review, finding that RECO’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence before it. The Court held that RECO had considered all relevant factors in making its decision and had acted fairly throughout the process.
-  In this decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s request for costs on the basis that s. 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA â€) limits the authority to award costs to matters involving conduct that is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or done in bad faith.   Section 32 of the SPPA states that, unless an Act expressly provides otherwise, the provisions of the SPPA prevail over the provisions of that Act in the event of a conflict.   According to the Applicant, the “fatal flaw†in the reasoning of the Tribunal is that it ignores and gives no meaning to the words “under this section†in s. 17.1(2) and (3) of the SPPA . Â
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your coughs and sneezes, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
This case involved a complaint of discrimination and threat of reprisal made by Maximova against Medallion Corporation. Maximova alleged that she was mistreated and discriminated against because of her sick leave, and that she was threatened with reprisal if she continued to take sick leave. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the evidence presented by Maximova was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and threat of reprisal, and ordered Medallion Corporation to pay damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
- The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Codeâ€). Specifically, the applicant alleges that her supervisor intimidated, abused and harassed her. The Application does not associate the abuse, intimidation and harassment with any Code ground. The applicant became ill as a result of the alleged mistreatment and was on a sick leave. She was allegedly mistreated and then terminated upon her return to work from her sick leave.
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face covering when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court in McNaught v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2004 CanLII 43790 (ON SCDC). The appellant, Mr. McNaught, had filed a reprisal complaint against the respondent, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), alleging that he had been subjected to reprisals for filing a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Divisional Court dismissed his motion to consolidate proceedings related to his contempt application and his reprisal complaint.
The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court erred in its interpretation of Rule 20.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and allowed Mr. McNaught’s appeal. The Court found that it was open to the Divisional Court to consolidate proceedings related to both matters and remitted the matter back to the Divisional Court for further consideration.
-  Administrative law — Duty to act fairly — Worker filing reprisal complaint against employer under Occupational Health and Safety Act — Employer bringing motion before Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to s. 13 of Statutory Powers Procedure Act asking Board to state case to Divisional Court that worker was guilty of   Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Self-incrimination — Section 11 of Charter not applying to motion under s. 13 of Statutory Powers Procedure Act to have tribunal state case to Divisional Court that person has been guilty of contempt — Person who is subject of s. 13 motion before tribunal not being “charged with offence”   The contempt motion was brought pursuant to s. 13(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA “). Â
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you sneeze or cough, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
Research To Do:
- principle of vicarious liability
- public authority liability
- Indirect liability
- public interesy
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face covering when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a decision that clarifies the tort liability exposure for public authorities. The case, known as City of Toronto v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 1, involved a dispute between the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario over whether the City was liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain a bridge in a safe condition.
The Supreme Court held that public authorities can be held liable for damages caused by their negligence in failing to maintain public infrastructure in a safe condition. The Court noted that public authorities have an obligation to ensure that public infrastructure is maintained in a safe condition and must take reasonable steps to do so. If they fail to do so, they may be held liable for any resulting damages.
The Court also clarified that public authorities are not immune from tort liability simply because they are performing a governmental function or providing services on behalf of the government. Instead, they must still take reasonable steps to ensure that their activities do not cause harm or injury to others.
This decision provides important guidance for public authorities regarding their potential tort liability exposure when it comes to maintaining public infrastructure in a safe condition. It also serves as an important reminder that even though these entities are performing governmental functions, they must still take reasonable steps to protect the safety of those who use their services and facilities.
- In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCCâ€) clarified when public authorities will be exposed to tort liability in relation to decisions which result in injury to the public. The SCC unanimously ruled in Nelson (City) v Marchi, 2021 SCC 41 (Marchi) that municipalities will not be granted immunity when facing allegations of negligence unless the impugned act or failure to act was a core policy decision which falls within a new framework outlined by the SCC. The new framework for determining when core policy immunity arises will have a far-reaching impact for underwriters of public authorities and those in the industry who deal with claims involving public authorities.
The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face covering when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover coughs and sneezes, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.
You may also like
