The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a decision of the Divisional Court which had overturned a decision by a panel of the College’s Discipline Committee finding the Respondent Chiropractor guilty of professional misconduct of having sexually abused a patient, and revoking his certificate of registration pursuant to a zero-tolerance mandatory revocation provision in the Health Professions Procedural Code in situations where a member of a regulated health profession has sexual intercourse with a patient. The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court had erred in law by imposing on a discipline committee the obligation to enquire into whether the sexual relationship of the parties arose out of their spousal relationship or their doctor-patient relationship in order to determine whether there was sexual abuse. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Divisional Court and restored the decision of the Discipline Committee.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Chiropractors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Sexual relations with patients – Spousal relationship – Treating family members – Statutory provisions – Penalties and Suspensions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence Leering v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, [2010] O.J. ...

The Court allowed an application by a physician to quash an interim order made by the Complaints Committee of the Respondent College, prohibiting him from performing anesthesia, except in a hospital under the supervision of a certified anesthetist. The Court allowed the application, finding that there was no evidence to support the opinion that the Applicant’s conduct exposed or was likely to expose his patients to harm or injury and, in the result, it was encumbant upon the Committee to give some explanation for rejecting all of the evidence that was contrary to its conclusion.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Public interest – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Liberman v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2010] O.J. No. 227, 2010 ...

The Court of Appeal considered whether the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Manitoba had erred in finding the Appellant guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer for swearing at a member of a tribunal and, as a consequence, imposing a restriction on the Appellant’s practicing certificate to address its concerns as to her psychological fitness to practice law. The Court dismissed the Appellant’s conviction appeal, in which she alleged an apprehension of bias on the part of the panel, but allowed her sentence appeal, in part, on the basis that the panel improperly considered issues of competency or ungovernability which were not the subject of the citation before it.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Penalties and Suspensions – Judicial review – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ritchot v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2010] M.J. No. 28, 2010 MBCA 13, Manitoba Court of ...

The Court allowed a petition for judicial review of two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, which had denied compensation to the Petitioner for psychological problems he claimed were a consequence of a prior back injury. The Court found that the Appeal Tribunal had made a patently unreasonable error by applying an incorrect legal test in determining whether the Petitioner’s psychological problems were compensable.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Psychological injury – employment related – Test – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Chima v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2009] B.C.J. No. 2281, 2009 BCSC 1574, British Columbia ...

The Court granted an application for judicial review by a police constable who had been suspended without pay by the respondent police chief. The Court found that the respondent did not have the authority to suspend the applicant without pay, because the applicant had not been “sentenced to a term of imprisonment”, as required by section 89(6) of the Police Services Act, despite a period of pre-sentence custody.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Criminal record – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Trinaistich v. Crowell, [2009] O.J. No. 4830, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 13, 2009, F.R. Caputo, M.R. ...

The Court granted a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch, which had ordered the Respondent landlord to pay $1,500 in damages to his former tenant, the petitioner. The petitioner had complained that his landlord had unlawfully disposed of his personal possessions while he was away from his apartment. The statutory obligations of the landlord under section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancy Act, in relation to abandoned goods, did not apply to the facts. The dispute resolution officer’s decision to award damages based on the irrelevant consideration of non-existent statutory breaches by the landlord, without considering the tenant’s rights as a bailor at common law, was patently unreasonable.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Residential Tenancy office – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination – Tenant’s goods – Bailee – Damages – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Bello v. Ren, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2323, 2009 BCSC 1598, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 23, 2009, L. Fenlon J. ...

The Court dismissed an appeal by the City of Ottawa which had argued that the Ontario Municipal Board had erred in failing to give deference to the decision of City Council, regarding its rejection of a development proposal. The Court held that section 2.1 of the Planning Act, which required the Board to “have regard to” Council’s decision, suggested that minimal deference was owed to Council’s decision. In the result, the Board did not fail in its duty imposed by section 2.1.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Have regard to – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation Ottawa (City) v. Minto Communities Inc., [2009] O.J. No. 4913, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 13, 2009, P.T. ...

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a judicial review decision that set aside an adjudicator’s decision ordering the appellant’s reinstatement to his employment with the Correctional Service of Canada. While the reviewing court had erred in applying a standard of review of correctness to the adjudicator’s decision, the adjudicator’s decision was nonetheless unreasonable, in that he failed to properly apply the employer’s standards to the appellant’s conduct. Additionally, the adjudicator erred in his application of the arbitral jurisprudence in his characterization of the seriousness of the appellant’s offence, and by employing an empirical approach in determining whether the grievor’s conduct discredited the CSC.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Employment law – Termination of employment – Code of discipline – Off-duty conduct – Judicial review – Adjudication – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Tobin v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.C.J. No. 968, Federal Court ...

The Federal Court allowed an application by a group of federal employees for judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, which had dismissed complaints of abuse of authority that had been filed by the applicants. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider the evidence before it and that its decision was unreasonable.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Abuse of public authority – Employment law – Appointment – Competition for employment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.C.J. No. 943, ...