The Court dismissed a former paramedic’s application for judicial review of a decision by a hospital’s Medical Director to decertify her as both a Primary Care Paramedic and Advanced Care Paramedic. The Court found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision, but that the Applicant had not been denied natural justice, the Medical Director’s decision was reasonable, and he had not exhibited bias.

Administrative law – Paramedics – Competence – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical director – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Public body – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Scheerer v. Waldbillig, [2006] O.J. No. 744, Ontario Superior ...

The Court set aside, in part, the Human Rights Tribunal’s decision not to dismiss the Complainant’s human rights complaint. The Court also set aside the Tribunal’s order for disclosure of certain documents.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Equality rights – Judicial review – Legislative compliance – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Correctness Cariboo Chevrolet Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. v. Becker, [2006] B.C.J. No. 119, British ...

The Court prohibited the appointment by both the Applicant Physician and Respondent Authority of certain individuals to an Appeal Committee, on the basis that those appointments would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Penalties and Suspensions – Medical Advisory Committee – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Natural justice – Bias Fong v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, [2006] M.J. No. 25, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, January 10, 2006, Greenberg J. The Applicant is ...

The Court found that a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision that additional information submitted by a Complainant, outside a limitation period, did not constitute a new complaint, was not patently unreasonable

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Powers under legislation – Legislative compliance – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Limitations – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Lake City Casinos Ltd. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2006] B.C.J. No. 115, British Columbia ...

A majority of the Court found that the Defendant Board had exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring the Appellant Public Utility to distribute the net gain from the sale of assets, in part, to its ratepaying customers

Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Powers under legislation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Sale of assets – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Statutory interpretation – Legislative compliance – Public interest – Standard of review – Correctness ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), ...

The Court set aside an Order in Council removing the Applicant from his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of VIA Rail. The Governor General in Council had breached the duty to act fairly by not informing the Applicant of the reason or reasons for dissatisfaction with him and not giving him the opportunity to be heard.

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Appointment – Termination of employment – Legislation – Orders-in-council – Validity – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness Pelletier v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1891, Federal Court Montréal, Quebec, November 18, 2005, Noël J. In 2001, the Applicant had been appointed to hold office at pleasure for a ...

The Court allowed an appeal of a company that had sought redress from the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal after it had lost considerable money over the years after being assigned an incorrect classification under the Act. The WCB and WCAT had erred in concluding that they did not have the discretion to contemplate a calculation of the Appellant’s over-assessment to a date earlier than the year in which the correction was made.

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Industry classification – Assessment – Statutory interpretation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Thermo Dynamics Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2005] N.S.J. No 475, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, November 23, 2005, E.A. Roscoe, ...

The Court affirmed, in part, an Order of the Respondent Committee requiring a physician to repay professional fees pursuant to the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Billing matters – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Wong v. Joint Medical Professional Review Committee, [2005] S.J. No. 690, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, November 15, 2005, Ball J. The Appellant was a family physician who ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from the decision of the judge on judicial review who had upheld a decision of the Occupational Health and Safety Council finding that the Appellant had been dismissed from his employment for insubordination and not for raising a safety concern

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Navrot v. Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety Council), [2005] A.J. No. 1569, Alberta Court of Appeal, November 16, 2005, Hunt, Berger and Ritter, ...