Professional figure skating coaches (the “Patersons”) brought an application for judicial review of the procedure adopted by Skate Canada which had commenced an investigation into complaints against the Patersons alleging dishonesty, fraudulent misconduct and personal harassment. The court found that the procedures put into place by Skate Canada did not meet the criteria of due process in that the Patersons would not be allowed to cross-examine the complainants. The court granted an order prohibiting Skate Canada from proceeding with the charges against the Patersons until procedures were in place to guarantee fairness.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Jurisdiction of tribunal Paterson v Skate Canada, [2004] A.J. No. 1542, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 22, 2004, Moen J. The Patersons were professional figure skating coaches who moved to Grande ...

The applicant was not an “office holder” and therefore his dismissal by the respondent was subject to a minimal duty of fairness which was met by the respondent in the circumstances

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias Youth Criminal Defence Office v. Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society of Alberta, [2004] A.J. No. 1345, November 3, 2004, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Hart J. The applicant (“Holtby”) applied for a declaration of nullity ...

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 ...

Three graduates of non-Canadian dentistry schools (the “Applicants”) were unsuccessful in their applications for judicial review of the decisions of the Alberta Dental Association and College and the associated Council denying their registration and licensing attempts to become dentists who could practice in Alberta

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Governance – Licence to practice – Examinations – Foreign graduates – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Dental Association and College – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Limitations Patterson v. Alberta Dental Assn. And College, [2004] A.J. No 1162, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 14, 2004, ...

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 ...

An unregistered egg farmer (“Donszelmann”), who had shown a complete disregard for the licensing and quota provisions of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act S.A. 1987, c. M-5.1 (the “Act”) and its Regulations, was ordered to pay service charges in respect of egg production during a specified period to The Alberta Egg Producers Board (the “Board”)

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Egg Producers Board – Penalties – Service fees – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Alberta Egg Producers Board v. Donszelmann, [2004] A.J. No. 1148, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 4, 2004, Johnstone J. Donszelmann had 6,000 hens removed from his farm pursuant to a Court order. ...

Del Bianco’s appeal from an Order of the Alberta Securities Commission was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support both the Commission’s finding that Del Bianco had traded in shares without being registered and the reasonableness of the sanctions imposed.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Securities Commission – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Del Bianco v. Alberta Securities Commission, [2004] A.J. No. 1222, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 29, 2004, Fruman and Ritter JJ.A. and Sullivan J. Del Bianco was the director of ...

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 ...