The Applicant sought relief from the Court from an Appeal Tribunal that upheld the decision of a Board of Judges that found the Applicant was in violation of the Rules of Racing established by Horse Racing Alberta. The Court found that the appropriate standard of review was correctness. The Court quashed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision, and granted an Order of mandamus directing that there be no further action taken against the Applicant.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Mandamus Hennessy v. Horse Racing Alberta, [2006] A.J. No. 1613, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 15, 2006, Sanderman J. The ...

The Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles confirming an administrative driving prohibition. The BCSC held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the Adjudicator’s decision was patently unreasonable and remitted the matter to re-hearing.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Breathalyser test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Superintendent of Motor Vehicles – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Swanson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), ...

This was an application pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 by the Petitioner for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of an Adjudicator acting under section 94.5 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.318 (“MVA”). The Adjudicator’s decision confirmed an administrative driving prohibition imposed on the Petitioner by a police officer. The Court held that the applicable standard of review with respect to the decision of the Adjudicator, based upon a finding of fact, is patent unreasonableness. The Court held that the Adjudicator’s decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Breathalyser test – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Superintendent of Motor Vehicles – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness LeBlanc v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2006] B.C.J. No. 3237, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 14, 2006, Bruce J. A police officer ...

The Petitioner applied under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.241 for judicial review of a screening decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”). The British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”) applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review under sections 59(3) and 59(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, R.S.B.C. 2004, c. 45 (“ATA”). The BCSC held that there was no basis for concluding that the Chair of the BCHRT exercised her discretion arbitrarily or in bad faith, for an improper purpose, based on irrelevant factors, or that she failed to take statutory requirements into account. The petition was dismissed.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Mootness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness L.M.A. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Child and Family Services), [2006] B.C.J. No. 3274, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 20, 2006, Joyce J. The Petitioner filed two ...

The University of Saskatchewan (the “University”) applied for judicial review of a decision of the Visitor of the University directing that the Respondent, Dr. Pearlman, be permitted to continue his residency at the College. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the Visitor for further consideration. The Court held that the standard of review in this case was patent unreasonableness. Although the Court held that the Visitor had broad remedial powers to investigate the matter, the Court overturned its decision, as it did not comply with the Labour Standards Act.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Universities – Evaluation of residents – Labour law – Working conditions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Pearlman v. University of Saskatchewan, [2006] S.J. No. 618, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 27, 2006, Cameron, Lane and ...

The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Marsden, applied for judicial review of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) decision. The Board held that Dr. Taylor, the Respondent, was allowed to administer anti-hypertension medication generally to the Applicants’ incapacitated mother. The Court held that the proper standard of review of the Board’s decision was simple reasonableness. It allowed the Applicants’ appeal in part.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Consent to treatment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Parties – Death of a party – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Marsden v. Taylor, [2006] O.J. ...

The Applicant, Mo’s Sport’s Parlour, applied for a judicial review of the Board (the “Board”) of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision cancelling its licence which permitted it to operate a bar, serve liquor and have specified gaming machines in the bar. Applying the standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the Commission did not breach the rules of natural justice by refusing to allow the Applicant to ask certain questions on cross-examination of a witness. It also concluded that there was a thread of reason through the Commission’s written reasons supporting this conclusion. The Court dismissed the Application for judicial review.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence – Witnesses – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mo’s Sports Parlour (2000) Ltd. v. ...

The Applicant, Dr. Cimolai applied for an order setting aside an investigative report. Dr. Cimolai also sought an order to prohibit the Respondent Hospital from proceeding with a complaint against him, and for the Applicant’s reinstatement to his former position with the Hospital. The Court concluded that it would be premature to conduct a judicial review and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investigations – Judicial review application – Premature – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Witnesses – Compliance with legislation Cimolai v. Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2199, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 3, 2006, Cullen ...

The Petitioner sought an order quashing a decision of the Respondent, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”), dismissing her human rights complaint against the Respondent, the University of Victoria (the “University”). The Court held that the appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a basis for quashing the BCHRT decision, and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Universities – Students – Duty to accommodate – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Limitations – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Callaghan v. University of Victoria, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2668, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 11, ...