The appeal by Canadian National Railway (CNR) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) from the Canadian Transportation Agency’s (the “Agency”) dismissal of their preliminary objection to the hearing and disposition of an application filed by the Southern Ontario Locomotive Restoration Society (SOLRS) was allowed, the Agency’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted back to the Agency with instruction that it decline to deal with SOLRS’ application for want of jurisdiction. The Agency acted beyond its jurisdiction when it disposed of SOLRS’ application, despite the fact that it was filed after the six month limitation period had expired.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Transportation Agency – Limitations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Canadian Transport Agency), [2008] F.C.J. No. 862, Federal Court of Appeal, May 29, 2008, Desjardins, Nöel and Blais JJ.A. The ...

The Appeal by Team Transport from the dismissal of its application for judicial review of the decision of two joint arbitrators was dismissed where the Court found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and Team Transport’s motive appeared to be a collateral attack on the legal validity of an Agreement which had been incorporated into an Order in Council, the constitutionality of which had been upheld

Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Arbitration agreements – Terms of agreement – Arbitrators – Powers – Judicial review – Appeals – Bias – Legislation – Orders-in-council – Validity – Jurisdiction Team Transport Services Ltd. v. Klair, [2008] B.C.J. No. 953, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 28, 2008, M.A. Rowles, N.V. Newbury ...

The applicant physician sought to quash a decision of the respondent College to proceed to a disciplinary hearing and to prohibit such a hearing when allegedly, the respondent’s decision not to proceed to hearing allowed by the governing statute had already been made. The applicant argued that the statutory power had been exhausted and there is no statutory authority to review or reconsider that decision. The court held that there was never an unconditional and final direction by the investigation chair that no further action be taken, and dismissed the application.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Statutory powers – Investigations – Hearings Ferrari v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2008] A.J. No. 262, Alberta’s Court of Queens Bench, March 10, 2008, Foster, J. ...

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario from a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario approving the application of the respondent for a liquor licence. The Board correctly noted that a criminal conviction or administrative sanction did not disqualify an applicant for a liquor licence.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Permits and licences – Public interest – Previous criminal conviction – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission) v. Arena Entertainment (C.O.B. Circa), [2008] O.J. No. 1167, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, March 25, 2008, Lietch, ...

Where a governmental body delegates powers to a third party and issues licences to employees of that third party to carry out delegated tasks, the awarding and revocation of licences is subject to the principles of administrative law and the requirements for procedural fairness. While such delegation is an authorization and the licensee holds a public office of sorts, this does not imply that the licence holder is a “public office holder”.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Permits and licences – Motor vehicle inspection – Public officer – Delegated authority – Compliance with legislation – Public safety – Procedural requirements and fairness Societe de L’Assurance Automobile du Quebec v. Cyr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 13, Supreme Court of Canada, March 28, 2008, McLachllin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie ...

An application for judicial review of the City’s action in amending its zoning bylaw without notice to the Applicant, when the zoning bylaw was at issue in a separate appeal. The Court held that the City had breached its obligations of procedural fairness to the Applicant when it amended its bylaw without notice to the Applicant when it knew or should have known that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the bylaw.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – By-laws – Validity – Notice and consultation – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Airport Self Storage and R.V. Centre Ltd. v. Leduc (City), [2008] A.J. No. 26, Alberta Court of ...

An application for judicial review of two decisions of the Manitoba Board of Adjudictation which upheld complaints filed by twin sisters that they had suffered discrimination on the basis of gender by being denied an opportunity to try out for the male hockey team at their school. The Court dismissed the application and upheld the decision of the Manitoba Board of Adjudication.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Board of Adjudication – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Test – Gender – Judicial review -Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association Inc. v. Pasternak, [2008] M.J. No. 10, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, January 21, ...

An application for judicial review seeking a declaration that subsection 41(b.1) of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227 (“MMAR”) is invalid, and that the matter be referred back to the Minister of Health for reconsideration and that the Court retain supervisory jurisdiction over Health Canada’s implementation of a revised process for allowing a single designated producer of medical marijuana to produce for more than one medical user. The Court held that subsection 41(b.1) was a restriction on the Applicants’ Section 7 liberty and security rights in the Charter, that could not be saved by section 1. The matter was referred back to the Minister of Health for reconsideration consistent with the Court’s reasons, but the Court declined to retain supervisory jurisdiction.

Administrative law – Medicinal use of marijuana – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life liberty or security of the person – Validity of legislation – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Legislation – Ultra vires Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] F.C.J. No. 6, Federal Court ...

An appeal by Roeder from the dismissal of his action as an abuse of process was dismissed. There is no cause of action for breach of the rules of procedural fairness. The proper remedy for “process allegations” is judicial review.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Hearings – Disclosure – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Abuse of process – Appeals – Remedies – Alternative remedies Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2007] B.C.J. No. 501, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 14, ...