An Application for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland to dismiss the complaint without a hearing was dismissed as there was no information arising from the investigation of the complaint which warranted sending the matter to a full inquiry. The investigation by the Commission was impartial and both parties had full opportunity to put forward their cases.

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Discrimination – Equality rights – Judicial review – Investigations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Francis v. CHC Composites Inc., [2006] N.J. No. 8, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, January 13, 2006, W.G. ...

An appeal by way of trial de novo from a decision of the Respondent Board of Dispensing Opticians finding the Appellant guilty of unprofessional conduct was dismissed. The Court accepted the customers’ evidence that the Appellant became upset and berated them when they were dissatisfied with lenses designed by the Appellant and held that this constituted unprofessional conduct. The Court also found that the Appellant was guilty of unprofessional conduct in attempting to influence the complaints process of the Board by threatening to withhold money owed to one of the customers unless he dropped his complaint. The penalty of a seven-week suspension imposed by the Board was appropriate and was confirmed by the Court.

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Opticians – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties and suspensions Carr v. Nova Scotia (Board of Dispensing Opticians), [2006] N.S.J. No. 10, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, January 12, 2006, D.L. MacLellan J. An appeal was filed by J.C. from the ...

An Application to quash an interim Order made by the Respondent Human Rights Tribunal requiring the Applicants to call as witnesses persons whom the Applicants did not wish to call and to produce “will-say” statements from those persons was allowed. The Tribunal’s Order was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness to the Applicants and, potentially, to the witnesses and was therefore set aside. Natural justice and procedural fairness required that the parties be free to conduct their own cases.

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Hearings – Compellability of witness – Judicial review – Witnesses – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2006] O.J. No. 50, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ...

The Court upheld the decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which found that the Medical Officer of Health went beyond the scope of his statutory authority under s. 13 of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act in making Orders prohibiting smoking or the holding of lighted tobacco in small and privately owned businesses in the hospitality industry

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Health Services Appeal and Review Board), [2006] O.J. No. 52, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court, January 4, 2006, D.R. Aston, S.E. Greer and K.E. ...

An application for judicial review by the Applicant in respect of two discretionary conditions of the Applicant’s long-term offender order which were confirmed by the National Parole Board (“NPB”) was dismissed. The NPB’s decision to impose a condition that the Applicant take medication was correct and, even though such a condition offended section 7 of the Charter, it could be saved under section 1. The no contact condition was reasonable and was therefore not subject to judicial review.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – National Parole Board hearings – Discretionary conditions – Long-term offenders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Deacon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1827, Federal Court, November 4, 2005, Teitelbaum J. The Applicant brought an application for ...

On judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the court held that the Tribunal was within its statutory jurisdiction in making the damage awards it did and it did not err in finding liability for discrimination on the facts before it

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Remedies – Certiorari – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Crown immunity – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness British Columbia v. Bolster, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2365, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 27, 2005, Parrett J. The Province ...

The application of the Respondent City of Toronto (the “City”) that a member of the panel of the Divisional Court recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed. The moving parties, by their own conduct, had waived their right to raise the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias and, in addition, the moving parties failed to establish that there was in fact a reasonable apprehension of bias on behalf of the subject judge.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Bias – Judiciary – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test SOS-Save Our St. Clair Inc. v. Toronto (City), [2005] O.J. No. 4729, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 3, 2005, P.T. Matlow, S.E. Greer and E.M. Macdonald JJ. On October 11, 2005, a panel of the Divisional Court released a ...

An appeal of a decision of an applications judge that the evidence in support of applications for judicial review be restricted to the certified Tribunal record was allowed. The applications judge erred in failing to consider that evidence outside of the administrative record can be considered where the grounds for review are any of the various forms of jurisdictional error.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review applications – Evidence – admissibility – Jurisdiction McFayden v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1817, Federal Court of Appeal, November 2, 2005, Desjardins, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A. An applications judge granted the Respondent’s motion ...

The judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Transport was dismissed as the court held that the Minister acted in good faith, the principles of natural justice were observed, and that the decision was not based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Port divestiture – Judicial review – Natural justice and legitimate expectations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Newfoundland and Labrador v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1825, Federal Court, November 2, 2005, Harrington J. In March 2003, Transport ...