The reviewing judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application as the adjudicator interpreted the discrimination provisions in the Applicant’s collective agreement in a way that was neither silly, bordering on the absurd, nor clearly irrational. The construction given to the discrimination provisions was rationally supported by the relevant legislation.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Bainbridge v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), [2005] N.B.J. No. 114, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 10, 2005, W.S. Turnbull, M.E.L. Larlee and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. The Applicants ...

The Saskatchewan Cities Act states that an appeal from the decision of City Council must be brought within 30 days of the date the decision was made and the court was therefore without jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s appeal as it was commenced 37 days after this date

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Limitations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Markwart v. Prince Albert (City), [2005] S.J. No. 193, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, March 23, 2005, Klebuc J. The Applicants brought, amongst other things, an appeal pursuant to section 329(4) of the Saskatchewan Cities Act for an order quashing ...

The Applicant’s application to declare the Respondent City’s noise bylaw invalid on constitutional grounds was dismissed. With respect to the application for judicial review, the court held that the City’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s business licence was unimpeachable on a standard of correctness as the licensing inspector had just and reasonable grounds for denying the Applicant its business licence.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Rules and by-laws – Charter of Rights – Validity of noise by-law – Permits and licences – Renewal of business licence – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness 1022049 Alberta Ltd. v. Medicine Hat (City), [2005] A.J. No. 320, Alberta Court of Queen’s ...

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the B.C. Securities Commission dismissing the Appellant’s application under section 171 of the British Columbia Securities Act due to unjustified delay

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Judicial review – Delay – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Roeder v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2005] B.C.J. No. 693, British Columbia Court of Appeal, April 4, 2005, Huddart, Saunders and Oppal JJ.A. ...

The administrative penalty of $25,000.00 imposed on the Appellant was not in the circumstances unreasonable and the Appellant’s appeal was therefore dismissed

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Hogan v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2005] B.C.J. No. 131, British Columbia Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, Finch C.J.B.C., Prowse and Levine JJ.A. The British Columbia Securities Commission ...

The British Columbia Human Rights Code creates “personal” rights and such rights abate on the death of the person whose human rights have allegedly been breached. The Tribunal therefore did not have statutory jurisdiction to hear matters in such circumstances.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Death of complainant – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia v. Goodwin, [2005] B.C.J. No. 193, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 4, 2005, Cohen J. The Petitioner, the Province of British Columbia (the “Province”), sought ...

With one exception, the decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) to disclose confidential third party records pertaining to various complainants was confirmed

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial review – Disclosure of third party records – Relevance of information disclosed – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Au, [2005] O.J. No. 234, Ontario ...

The Appellant, Dr. D, appealed to the Ontario Superior Court from the decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) whereby the Committee found Dr. D. to have engaged in professional misconduct in relation to his care and treatment of three terminally ill cancer patients. The Appellant also appealed the consequent decision to impose the penalty of revocation. The appeals against both the convictions and the penalty were dismissed.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Double jeopardy – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Devgan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, ...

A panel of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) found that the Respondent Donnini had engaged in unlawful insider trading contrary to section 76(1) of the Ontario Securities Act. The Commission suspended Donnini’s registration as a securities trader for 15 years and ordered him to pay investigation and hearing costs of $186,000. Donnini appealed all aspects of the Commissioner’s order. A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from liability, but allowed the appeal in respect of the sanctions imposed on Donnini and the award of costs. The Divisional Court reduced Donnini’s suspension from 15 to 4 years and directed the Commission to reconsider its costs award by following specific procedural steps. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commission’s findings on liability and sanction but remitted the matter of costs for the Commission’s reconsideration.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Costs – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Donnini v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 240, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, M. Rosenberg, M.J. Moldaver and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A. In February ...