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 Appellant, Mr. Foster, sought judicial review of a Transportation Safety Board (“Board”) decision, which upheld a three month administrative license suspension made because Mr. Foster was allegedly driving while exceeding the legal alcohol limit. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appropriate standard of review of the Board’s decision was reasonableness.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Transportation Safety Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Foster v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board), [2006] A.J. No. 1263, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 12, 2006, Ritter, Hunt and Berger ...

The appeal by a realtor from a conviction of failing to cooperate with an investigator of the Real Estate Council of Alberta (the “Council”) was dismissed where the Court found that there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that James had failed to cooperate with the investigator by being rude and by failing to produce a listing agreement

26. September 2006 0
Administrative law – Real estate agents – Investigations – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter James v. Real Estate Council of Alberta, [2006] A.J. No. 844, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 17, 2006, Hunt and Fruman JJ.A and Brooker J. (ad hoc) A client complained to the Council about James’s ...

The appeal by McLeod and Miszczuk from a decision of the Securities Commission upholding the Exchange’s decision disqualifying them from being directors, officers or employees of Exchange companies was dismissed where the Court held that the lack of an oral hearing before the Commission did not render the decision unfair.

26. September 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Director of corporation – Removal – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness McLeod v. Alberta Securities Commission, [2006] A.J. No. 939, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 31, 2006, Fraser C.J.A. and Hunt and O’Brien JJ.A McLeod was ...

A taxi driver applied for judicial review of the License Appeal Board’s decision upholding the suspension of his taxi driver’s licence and the revocation of his taxi plates. The Court allowed the application on the basis that the City’s Chief Taxi Inspector had not properly submitted his decision to the Taxi Commission for review, which caused the License Appeal Board to lose jurisdiction. The Board had also failed in its duty to follow a rigorous procedure and provide a high degree of fairness.

22. August 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Permits and licences – Taxi Licence Appeal Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Certiorari Barr v. Calgary (City), [2006] A.J. No. 701, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 3, 2006, Coutu ...

A complainant is not entitled to judicial review of the College of Physician and Surgeons’ decision to take no further action regarding her complaint. The only parties to the investigation were the physicians subject to the complaint and the College itself. A complainant is not made a party to either the investigation or the disciplinary process itself. The College exercised a power akin to prosecutorial discretion that is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. There was no impropriety on the part of the College or the expert retained in investigating the complaints. Judicial review was not available in the circumstances.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Investigations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Availability – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness M.H. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2006] A.J. No. 668, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, May 26, ...

The Court allowed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Appeal Board which had set aside the Appellant’s development permit. The Court found that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of one of the members of the Board, and the matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Subdivision and Development Appeal Board – Hearings – Judicial review – Bias – Natural justice Mountain Creeks Ranch Inc. v. Yellowhead (County) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, [2006] A.J. No. 398, Alberta Court of Appeal, April 12, 2006, Conrad, Berger and Ritter JJ.A. The ...

Canada Lands Co. CLC Ltd. (“CLC”) was successful in having the Court set aside a decision of the Alberta Municipal Government Board (the “MGB”) as to the amount of a 2003 municipal tax assessment of lands owned by CLC where the Court found that the MGB acted unreasonably in using theoretical formulae in substitution for the evidence before it on rates and expenses

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Property assessment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal Government Board – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Canada Lands Co. CLC Ltd. v. Alberta (Municipal Government Board), [2006] A.J. No. 463, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 21, 2006, Marceau J. CLC is a non-agent Crown ...

Rankin and three other professional curlers were successful in their application for judicial review of the decisions of the Review Committee and the Appeal Committee of the Alberta Curling Federation (“ACF”). The Court held that the sanctions imposed were patently unreasonable and unsupported by reasons and should be set aside.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Curling Federation – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspension – Failure to provide reasons – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Procedural requirements and fairness Rankin v. Alberta Curling Federation Appeals Committee, [2005] A.J. No. 1759, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 16, 2005, Germain J. Curling ...

A physician (“Dr. Litchfield”) applied for judicial review of a decision by the Investigating Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) finding him guilty on 9 out of 10 charges of inappropriate examinations and performing manual therapy without consent. The Court considered whether it was appropriate to deal with the judicial review application at this stage or whether it should defer to allow for completion of the internal process, including a hearing by Council and a statutory right of appeal, as set out in the Medical Profession Act, R.S.A. 220, c.M-11, (the “MPA”). The general rule is that an adequate internal appeal process should be exhausted but the Court retains discretion to allow judicial review in the face of an internal appeal in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances did not exist. Council had broad powers to receive and consider relevant new evidence and address issues concerning legal errors and breaches of the College’s duty of fairness and duty to fairly investigate the complaints.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Investigations – Appeal process – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Applications – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Evidence Litchfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2005] A.J. No. 1771, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, ...