|
Fairness - Written Hearings. 2668297 Ontario Limited v. Ontario
In 2668297 Ontario Limited v. Ontario (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court considered two combined JRs (one set granted and one set dismissed), that related to decisions where "the manager of the Program Oversight and Management Office of the MTO (“the Minister’s Delegate”), revoked the driving instructor licences of the applicants and the driving school licences of Peel Driving School and Unique Driving School".
Here the court considered [under the leading Baker case] the applicant's procedural fairness argument that an oral hearing was required at the administrative stage:[72] Assessing the Baker factors, an oral hearing was not required. While the Decision poses a significant financial impact on the applicants, the other factors weigh very much against requiring such a hearing. This licencing decision is far removed from that of a judicial decisionmaker, the applicants largely admitted to the factual allegations, and the expectations of the applicants were no more than what was provided to them: an opportunity to make fulsome written submissions after being given particularized notice of the reasons for the proposed revocation. Significantly, the statutory scheme explicitly provides that written submissions are permitted for this revocation decision: O. Reg. 473/07, s. 35(4); see also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1739 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (2007), 2007 CanLII 65617 (ON SCDC), 86 O.R. (3d) 508 (Div. Ct.), at para. 58, citing Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), 2001 SCC 52, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781, at para. 22. . Parimoo v. Amin
In Parimoo v. Amin (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against "an order declaring the appellant ... a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act".
Here the court considered the propriety of a written hearing, requested by the appellant:[6] Prior to the scheduled hearing date for this appeal, the appellant requested that the appeal be heard in writing. The respondents opposed this request. The respondents’ position was that the appellant prefers to litigate in writing because it allows him to “launch attacks from the safety of his keyboard” and he “does not want to be confronted with his behaviour in a face-to-face forum”.
[7] We acknowledge the respondents’ position. However, in our view, there was no prejudice to either party in dealing with this appeal in writing: see, e.g., The University of Western Ontario v. Simpson, 2020 ONCA 416. The materials that were filed in this appeal are comprehensive and we see nothing that oral argument would add to the issues that are relevant to this appeal. Accordingly, the panel granted the appellant’s request and permitted the appellant to file a reply factum. . Natotsijev v. Director of ODSP
In Natotsijev v. Director of ODSP (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an ODSP appeal, this brought against a decision that the SBT "lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the appellants and made no order", here where the appellant's were late requesting an internal review of the Director's income support cancellation and where the SBT refused to extend time to do so - which resulted in the appellant's inability to appeal to the SBT (as per Walsh v. Ontario (Div Ct, 2012).
Here the court considered the procedural fairness propriety of the SBT hold a written hearing:[8] With respect to procedural fairness, the appellants submit that fairness required that the Tribunal hearing be conducted in person, and that they have the assistance of a Russian interpreter at the hearing. The Tribunal addressed this request in two case management directions, the first of which directed the in-writing hearing and the second addressed the appellants’ objection to that process at length.
[9] In summary, the Tribunal noted that this hearing was on the preliminary jurisdictional issue and a paper hearing was appropriate given the history of the matter including the prior difficulties completing a hearing. The appellants had made objections to both telephone and videoconference hearings, and the two in-person dates that had been scheduled in response to their request for that form of hearing had to be postponed due to the ill health of one of the appellants. Further, the Tribunal found that since commencing their appeal, the appellants had no difficulties communicating in writing, including lengthy and detailed written submissions. We are not persuaded that the in-writing process was unfair in the circumstances of this case.
[10] The appellants further suggest that the Director wrongly changed documents after the fact. We reject these allegations of wrongdoing, which are completely without foundation. The appellants further suggest that the Member who made the first case management direction for an in-writing hearing was biased because of his reasons and because he had previously presided on another Tribunal decision that found against them. Neither objection gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the record before this Court.
[11] The appellants also submit that they should have had a right of reply to the Director’s submissions before the Tribunal reached its Decision. The appellants have not shown that a reply was required despite having a full opportunity to put forward any additional arguments in their appeal to this Court.
[12] We therefore conclude that there was no procedural unfairness. The Tribunal has the discretion to control its process and the right to be heard does not require an in-person hearing in every case. In this case, the decision to have an in-writing hearing was well-supported by the demonstrated abilities of the appellants to proceed in that way and the procedural history of the appeal. . Hamad v. Security National Insurance Company
In Hamad v. Security National Insurance Company (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a joint LAT SABS appeal-JR, this where the "LAT determined that the Appellant was not an “insured person” as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule".
The court considered a procedural fairness issue, here where the LAT decided a "preliminary issue hearing conducted pursuant to written submissions":(i) Did the LAT commit a material breach of procedural fairness by denying the Appellant an oral hearing?
[11] The issue of whether the Appellant was an “insured person” was determined at a preliminary issue hearing conducted pursuant to written submissions.
....
[14] The LAT is entitled to control its own process in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.22. The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, which are to be liberally interpreted as described in R. 3.1, provide for hearings in writing. I cannot find that the procedural decision to address the preliminary issue in writing was unfair. As the LAT outlined in its factum at para. 53, “as the LAT has experience and expertise in controlling its process, it is entitled to deference on its procedural choices that fall within the bounds of fairness”.
|
