You didn’t consider my reply! Canadian Human Rights Commission in breach of procedural fairness by ignoring reply submissions made by applicant to investigator’s report

19. November 2019 0
The court concluded that the Canadian Human Rights Commission committed a breach in procedural fairness when it failed to properly consider and assess reply submissions made by the applicant in response to the investigator’s initial investigation and report. The Commission could not simply adopt the investigator’s findings, when the applicant had raised new issues in ...

Complaint Dismissed: What can the BC Human Rights Tribunal consider when dismissing a complaint on the basis that it “would not further the purpose of this Code”

20. August 2019 0
The court considered the scope of the authority of the BC Human Rights Tribunal to take into account the results of a separate workplace proceeding when deciding to dismiss a complaint under the Human Rights Code pursuant to section 27(1)(d)(ii). Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Appeals – Application ...

Pharmacists Professional Misconduct: The scope of conditions a Discipline Committee can impose when there is a finding of professional misconduct

20. August 2019 0
The court considered the nature of the conditions the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists can impose when there has been a finding of professional misconduct. The court found the Discipline Committee had the authority to limit the ability of a pharmacist to act as a director of a corporation or hold other ...

This case considers when an application for judicial review will be moot and, if so, when the court will nonetheless exercise its residual discretion to hear the issue. The context was a complaint made with respect to the conduct of a parenting coordinator, mediator and arbitrator appointed under the Ontario Family Law Act to act as an arbitrator in a family law dispute.

21. May 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Mootness Cuhaci v. Ontario College of Social Workers, [2019] O.J. No 1383, 2019 ONSC 1801, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 20, 2019, A. Mullins, F.L. Myers and L.G. Favreau JJ. When is an issue raised on an application for judicial review moot? Even if moot, in what circumstances ...

The court considered the application of the so-called “Kienapple principle” – the principle that a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence. The context of the decision was a Hearing Officer’s disciplinary decision relating to the applicant police officer and the penalty for his misconduct.

21. May 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Police Commission – Professional governance and discipline – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming Durham (Regional) Police Service v. Sowa, [2019] O.J. No. 1555, 2019 ONSC 1902, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 28, 2019, H.E. Sachs, J.A. ...

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal, which directed it not to suspend the liquor licence of an establishment. In making its decision, the court concluded that a liquor establishment, under section 45 of the applicable regulation, did not have an obligation to ensure that patrons arrive home safely or to ensure that they safely depart their premises.

21. May 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – License Appeal Tribunal – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness Ontario (Registrar, Alcohol, Gaming and Racing) v. 1146587 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. The Royal Oak), [2019] O.J. No. 1336, 2019 ONSC 1469, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 18, 2019, K.E. Swinton, G.M. ...

The applicant made a request for personal information from the Communications Security Establishment. He claimed the response was unsatisfactory. He filed a formal complaint with the Officer of Privacy Commissioner of Canada, claiming that he had been improperly denied access to his personal information. The complaint was rejected by the Privacy Commissioner. The applicant was unsuccessful before the court on judicial review. The court recognized the sensitivity of the information being requested and concluded that, in respect of some of that information, the decision of the CSE to neither deny nor confirm its existence was reasonable.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Privacy Commissioner – National defence – Disclosure of records – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness Martinez v. Communications Security Establishment, [2018] F.C.J. No. 1190, 2018 FC 1179, Ontario Federal Court, November 23, 2018, S.E. Roussel J. The Communications Security Establishment (the “CSE”) is administered ...

The appellant’s claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits was denied after she experienced a traumatic event at her job as a correctional officer. The appellant was eventually diagnosed with PTSD, but the Workers’ Compensation Tribunal upheld the Commission’s decision that this was not new evidence that would substantially affect its original decision denying benefits. The Court of Appeal found the Tribunal made several errors that materially affected the outcome. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and an order was made to provide the appellant benefits retroactively to the date of the original claim.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Workers’ Compensation Tribunal – Benefits – Psychological injuries – Judicial review – Appeals – New evidence Perry v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2018] N.B.J. No. 291, 2018 NBCA 80, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, November 29, 2018, K.A. Quigg, B.V. Green and R.T. French JJ.A. ...

The petitioner hospital was unsuccessful on judicial review in setting aside the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to not summarily dismiss a human rights complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success under section 27(1) of the Human Rights Code. The complaint was for alleged discrimination by the hospital on the grounds of mental and physical disability in relation to the provision of services. The court found that the complaint had some prospect of success and that the Tribunal’s decision was not patently unreasonable. The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal was not in a position to second-guess the exercise of professional medical judgment by the hospital staff in the provision of services, absent discrimination.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Practice and procedure – Summary proceedings Hospital v. J.R. (Litigation guardian of), [2018] B.C.J. No. 3731, 2018 BCSC 2079, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 26, 2018, L.W. Bernard J. ...