An application for judicial review of a Bylaw passed by the Respondent City of Red Deer to regulate drinking establishments was dismissed. The Bylaw was not ultra vires the Municipal Government Act. The City enacted the Bylaw for municipal purposes and without ulterior motive. The Bylaw did not confer unlimited or illegal power. The Bylaw did not result in a duplication of powers under the Gaming and Liquor Act because that legislation did not address safety concerns that were particular to a specific community. The delegation permitted by the Bylaw was administrative and was therefore legal.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Legislation – By-laws – Ultra vires – Permits and licences – Fees – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Powers of delegated authority – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Passutto Hotels (1984) Ltd. v. Red Deer (City), [2006] A.J. No. 1100, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, September 5, 2006. ...

An appeal by Global Securities from a decision of the Securities Exchange Commission Panel was dismissed. Although the Hearing Panel itself could not make submission on the merits of its own decision, the Exchange was not precluded from doing so. The Commission’s decision on standing was reasonable, as it was based on the principle that the decision directly affected the Exchange, as it engaged one of the Exchange’s primary functions, the prosecution of infractions.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Review of a decision of its own disciplinary panel – Hearings – Parties – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Executive Director, Securities Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 2075, British Columbia Court ...

The appeal by Histed from his convictions by a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Manitoba on two charges of professional misconduct was dismissed. The discipline hearing before the Panel was not a nullity. Any reasonable apprehension of bias that may have existed at the investigative stage was cured by the full and fair hearing on the charges against the Appellant before the Panel. The findings of professional misconduct, the one month suspension and the order of costs, were all decisions that met the applicable standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties – Suspension – Costs – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Investigations – Fairness – Judicial review – Bias – Natural justice – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Histed v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2006] M.J. No. 290, Manitoba Court of ...

The appeal of the municipality from a decision of a motions judge who found that the doctrine of laches did not apply to an arbitration proceeding was allowed. While the motions judge was correct when he held that the statutory limitations of the Limitations of Actions Act applied to arbitrations under the Arbitration Act, he erred when he concluded that the equitable defence of laches did not apply when statutory limitations applied. The case was therefore remitted back to arbitrator for determination.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Arbitration – Laches – Limitations – Judicial review – Delay – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies Rivergate Properties Inc. v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality), [2006] M.J. No. 281, Manitoba Court of Appeal, July 20, 2006, Scott C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton JJ.A. The parties were ...

An appeal was allowed from a Divisional Court decision concluding that the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (the “Board”) lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a zoning bylaw restricted a normal farming practice. The Divisional Court erred in adopting an interpretation of the words “municipal bylaw” that excluded a zoning bylaw. Therefore, the Board had jurisdiction to determine the issue. However, the Board’s decision was unreasonable, as it did not comply with a provincial policy statement regarding the required distances between farm operations and their neighbours.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – By-laws – Planning and zoning – Permits and licences – Variance orders – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Farm Practices Protection Board – Government policies – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Hill and Hill Farms Ltd. v. Bluewater (Municipality), [2006] O.J. No. 3674, Ontario Court of ...

The City’s Appeal Committee overturned a Variance Order that allowed the Applicant to subdivide his property. An application for judicial review of this decision was dismissed. The Court held that the Appeal Committee did not err in its interpretation of the criteria set out in section 247(3) of the City of Winnipeg Charter. No manifest injustice occurred and the decision was not arbitrary, oppressive or improper. The Appeal Committee did not act in bad faith and there was no breach of natural justice.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal Appeal Committee – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Rohs v. Winnipeg (City), [2006] M.J. No. 275, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, July 6, 2006, McCawley J. The Applicant ...

An appeal by the University from a judge’s conclusion that the human rights complaint against the University was not defective, was dismissed. A finding of “probable cause” under the old Saskatchewan Human Rights Code was procedural in character. As such, the requirement did not survive recent amendments. The conclusion that the complaint was filed by a person was a finding of fact which was entitled to substantial deference. The judge’s decision on that point was reasonable. The Commission had no obligation to obtain the consent of the person aggrieved to hear the complaint and therefore did not err in failing to consider that question.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Legislation – Retrospective operation – Procedural requirements and fairness University of Saskatchewan v. Women 2000, [2006] S.J. No. 231, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, April 17, 2006, Cameron, Richards and Smith JJ.A. A group of ...

The Ontario Statutory Benefits Tribunal (“SBT “)has jurisdiction to consider the Ontario Human Rights Code in determining whether the Appellants were eligible for support pursuant to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (“ODSPA”). Statutory tribunals empowered to decide questions of law are presumed to have the power to look beyond their enabling statutes in order to apply the whole law properly to a matter before them. The matter was remitted to the SBT so it could rule on the applicability of section 5(2) of the ODSPA.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Statutory Benefits Tribunal – Statutory powers – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal to hear a complaint under the Human Rights Code – Compliance with legislation Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), [2006] S.C.J. No. 14, Supreme Court of Canada, April 21, ...

The decision of the Respondent Deputy Minister of Health to terminate Pharmacy Participation Agreements made between PharmaCare and the Petitioner pharmacies was the exercise of a statutory power of decision; it did not arise from the common law powers that the Crown enjoys as a natural person. The Petitioners were entitled to seek judicial review of the decision under the British Columbia Judicial Review Procedure Act. The duty of procedural fairness owed to the Petitioners was not met by the Respondent. Certiorari was granted, the decision to terminate the Pharmacy Participation Agreements was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Policies – Statutory provisions – Pharmacy Participation Agreements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Legislation – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Certiorari Delivery Drugs Ltd. (c.o.b. Gastown Pharmacy) v. British ...