|
Reasons - Licenses. The Ontario Health Coalition v. Ontario (Minister of Long-Term Care)
In The Ontario Health Coalition v. Ontario (Minister of Long-Term Care) (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this from "the June 14, 2023 decision of the Minister of Long-Term Care (the “Minister”) to approve funding and undertake to issue a licence for a new 320 bed long-term care home in Pickering, Ontario".
Here the court excuses administrative decision-makers from duties to fully address allegations of 'material omissions', and 'every argument or line of possible analysis', in their JR reasons - here in an "undertaking to issue a licence" context:[95] The Applicants also argue that the Minister’s decision contains material omissions. In this regard, paras. 128 and 301 of Vavilov are relevant:Reviewing courts cannot expect administrative decision makers to “respond to every argument or line of possible analysis” …, or to “make an explicit finding on each constituent element, however subordinate, leading to its final conclusion” ... To impose such expectations would have a paralyzing effect on the proper functioning of administrative bodies and would needlessly compromise important values such as efficiency and access to justice.
....
Review of the decision as a whole is especially vital when an applicant alleges that an administrative decision contains material omissions. Significantly, and as this Court has frequently emphasized, administrative decision-makers are not required to consider and comment upon every issue raised by the parties in their reasons. [96] The FLTCA does not require the Minister or the Director to give reasons for their decisions to issue a licence or an undertaking to issue a licence. In contrast, the Director is required to give reasons under s. 101(2) if the Director decides that a person is not eligible to be issued a licence, and that decision is subject to appeal by the person denied the licence. As a general proposition, the decision to grant or not grant a licence has the greatest impact on the person who applied for the licence, and it is the licence applicant, not the general public, who is granted greater procedural protection: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 25; Accettone Funeral Home Ltd., at paras. 29, 44 and 50.
[97] This is not a case where an administrative tribunal is tasked with making a decision following a hearing. “[N]ot all administrative decision making requires the same procedure”. The requirements of process will “vary with the context and nature of the decision-making process at issue”: Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, 423 D.L.R. (4th) 197, at para. 53, citing Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5, at para. 18.
|
