The Development Appeal Board’s confirmation of the Development Officer’s approval of a development permit was allowed as the City, without bad faith or obfuscation, misled the public with respect to the implementation of the amendment to a zoning bylaw

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public interest – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Boyd v. Yellowknife (City), [2004] N.W.T.J. No. 49, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, August 20, 2004, Lutz J. The Appellant appealed the Development Appeal Board’s decision confirming ...

The Respondent City did not have a statutory duty under the Municipal Government Act to supply utility services to parcels of land beyond its municipal boundaries

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Utility services – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Mandamus Landrex Developers Inc. v. St. Albert (City), [2004] A.J. No. 1116, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 8, 2004, Greckol J. The Applicants brought an application for an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the City of ...

The court found that the higher standard of proof applied by the Human Rights Tribunal Panel was wrong and contrary to the very essence of human rights legislation. However, in reviewing all of the evidence, the court held that the conclusion of the Panel was correct. The facts established by the Applicant did not amount to discrimination against the Applicant by the employer on the basis of race, colour, ancestry or place of origin with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Bobb v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2004] A.J. No. 1117, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 12, 2004, Verville J. The Applicant filed a complaint with the Human Rights ...

The Minister’s decision not to order an environmental impact assessment with respect to the Appellant’s proposal to enlarge a ski resort was found to be patently unreasonable and quashed. The matter was ordered to be returned to the Director for determination in accordance with the legislation.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Environmental issues – Environmental impact assessment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition v. Flett, [2004] A.J. No. 1128, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, July 2, 2004, Kenny J. The Applicant Wilderness Coalition applied for judicial ...

On an appeal from a dismissal of an application for judicial review of a series of decisions made by the City of Winnipeg in relation to the rezoning and development of a property, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge did not misapprehend either the law or the facts and exercised his discretion correctly in dismissing the application. The City had the jurisdiction to make the decisions in question and did not lose jurisdiction by the manner in which it made them.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Jurisdiction – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Statutory powers – Standard of review – Correctness Hechter v. Winnipeg (City), [2004] M.J. No. 357, Manitoba Court of Appeal, June 28, 2004, Scott C.J.M., Monnin ...

The court found a reasonable apprehension of bias to exist in circumstances where a physician testified at a College disciplinary hearing as both a fact and expert witness and was subsequently appointed to be a member of the College Discipline Committee shortly before the decision pertaining to the hearing at which she gave evidence was released

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Committee members – Impartiality – Judicial review – Witnesses – Bias – Disclosure – Procedural requirements and fairness Li v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. ...

The appeal of a decision of the discipline body of the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia was dismissed by the Supreme Court and on the subsequent appeal the Court held that the Supreme Court did not err in assessing the degree of proof required or in finding that any breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness were waived by the Appellant

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Association of Professional Engineers – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Natural justice Beaini v. Assn. of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia, [2004] N.S.J. No. 383, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 13, ...

The Appellant did not demonstrate that the Respondent Board’s decisions regarding applicable management fees were unreasonable and therefore the appeals were dismissed

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Management fees – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Reasonableness simpliciter Atco Electric Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2004] A.J. No. 906, Alberta Court of Appeal, August 16, 2004, Côté, Wittmann and Costigan JJ.A. The ...

The Applicant Association sought judicial review of the Province’s decision to substitute its own compensation package for provincial judges for that recommended by the 2003 Judicial Compensation Commission. The court held that while the Province’s action met the “rationality” test, the Province had not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances existed such that it could reject the Commission’s recommendations. The court therefore allowed the judicial review to the extent of providing the Province with 90 days to reconsider the Commission’s recommendations and to justify its rejection on the ground of exceptional circumstances.

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Remuneration of judges – Judicial Remuneration Commission – Recommendations – Government rejection – Simple rationality standard – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Ministerial orders Alberta Provincial Judges’ Assn v. Alberta, [2004] A.J. No. 936, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, August 20, 2004, MacCullam J. The Alberta Provincial Judges Association sought judicial review ...