The court set aside a decision of the Respondent to cancel a “final” certificate of inspection on the Applicant’s shipment of wheat after it had been shipped and sold on the basis of the inspection certificate. The Respondent had the regulatory power, which it had not exercised, to do what it had done, but the court could not give administrative practice the force of law by implying a power which the Respondent had failed to exercise by regulation.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Grain Commission – Certificate of inspection – Powers to cancel – Regulatory powers of tribunals – Functus officio – Limitations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada (Canadian Grain Commission), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1568, Federal ...

The decision of the Respondent, Health Canada, to impose a moratorium on the provision of service provider numbers was a managerial decision which was subject only to a limited degree of fairness. There was no requirement in this case for the Respondent to review the Applicant’s application for a service number on its merits and the application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Ministerial orders – Licence to provide health services – Procedural requirements and fairness 1018025 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1333, Federal Court, August 11, 2004, Gauthier J. The Applicant had been denied a service provider number which would have allowed it ...

A grain producer (“Pender”) successfully applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Grain Commission (the “Commission”) denying the applicant’s claim against security held under the Canada Grain Act, R.S.C. 1985, C.J. 10

22. June 2004 0
Pender Farms Ltd. v. Canada (Canadian Grain Commission), [2004] F.C.J. No. 798, Federal Court, April 29, 2004, O’Keefe J. Under the Canada Grain Act, a scheme exists to protect grain producers that sell to grain dealers who are or become bankrupt, or otherwise refuse to pay, by establishing a monetary security system. The Commission is ...

A business communications company (“Brunico”) which owned two national, biweekly, tabloid-sized publications successfully applied for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Heritage Minister (“Minister”) to disqualify it for funding in the year 2001-2002 under the Support for Editorial Content Grant Program, where the Minister had applied a test adopted only in January of 2002 to determine whether the publications were newspapers or magazines, and whether they were therefore eligible for funding

22. June 2004 0
Brunico Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] F.C.J. No. 789, Federal Court, April 30, 2004, Von Finckenstein J. Brunico first applied for funding for its publications under the Support for Editorial Content Grant Program in October of 2000. Brunico received funding totalling more than $200,000. However, on its second application, Brunico was denied funding. ...

This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in a judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35 (“PSSRA”). The issue was whether the Adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness. The Trial Division Judge found no breach of procedural fairness and dismissed the judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and quashed the decision of the Adjudicator.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Adjudication – Evidence Gale v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2004] F.C.J. No. 186, Federal Court of Appeal, January 12, 2004, Strayer, Rothstein and Sharlow JJ.A. Mr. Gale was a correctional officer at a Saskatchewan Penitentiary. A female colleague made a complaint ...

The application was for a judicial review of a decision of the Registrar refusing Ms. Moses’s registration as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act. The applicant’s judicial review application was struck as moot, since she had already registered pursuant to section 6(1)(f)of the Act. In determining the issue the court considered (1) registration pursuant to 6(1)(f) of the Act provided the applicant with all of the same benefits as registration pursuant to 6(1)(a) of the Act; (2) the judicial review was not an efficient use of scarce judicial resources; and (3) in the absence of a dispute having an effect on the rights of parties a Court decision would be an intrusion on the role of the legislative branch of the government.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Registration as an Indian – Judicial review application – Striking out – Mootness – Compliance with legislation Moses v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1835, Federal Court, December 3, 2003, Hargrave, Prothonotary Ms. Moses was confirmed as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act. She filed an application ...

An inmate appealed a denial of family visits on the basis that he had refused to participate in a sex offender program. The Court concluded that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, R.S.C. 1992, c.20 (the “Act”) did not appear reasonable. The Act provided that Mr. Edwards had a right to family visits subject only to reasonable limits. The court concluded the Commissioner erred when she decided that it was a “reasonable limit” to require that Mr. Edwards successfully complete the sex offender assessment and consequently the inmate’s application was granted. The matter was sent back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Visiting rights – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Prison Commissioner – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1887, Federal Court, December 10, 2003, Von Finckenstein Mr. Edwards was a federal inmate at Joyceville Institution. He was serving a ...

An inmate at Springhill Penitentiary, with a 35-year history of smoking marijuana prior to his incarceration (“Patriquen”), brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction requiring Health Canada to provide him with marijuana in accordance with his recently granted exemption from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, an exemption which allowed him to use cannabis to treat medical conditions. The Federal Court held that Patriquen failed to provide evidence illustrating that the injunction should be granted.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Use of narcotics – Medicinal use of marijuana – Judicial review – Evidence – Remedies – Injunctions – Test Patriquen v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1186, Federal Court, July 29, 2003, Blais J. Patriquen was incarcerated in September of 2002 after being charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose ...

On application by a customer of Telus Communications Inc. (“Telus) for local residential service under provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the “PIPEDA”), the court held that Telus had valid consent under PIPEDA to publish its customers’ personal information in Telus directories. The court also held that PIPEDA did not restrict Telus from charging a fee for the provision of Non-Published Number Service (“NPNS”).

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Telephone listings – Fee for unlisted numbers Englander v. Telus Communications Inc., [2003] F.C.J. No. 975, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 3, 2003, Blais J. The Applicant Englander, a customer of Telus Communications Inc. (“Telus”) for local residential telephone ...

An aviation company operating tourist flights (“Delco”) was charged with (i) landing or taking off an aircraft in a built-up area of a city or town without authorization, and (ii) the use of Class F Special Use Restricted Airspace. The Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal held that the two sets of charges were founded upon the same acts and that, due to the legal nexus between the counts, Delco had been placed in a position of double jeopardy. The Appeal Panel stayed two of the charges. The Ministry appealed to the Federal Court who held that a legal double jeopardy only exists if there are no additional and distinguishing elements between two charges. Although arising from the same transaction, the Act created separate and distinct offences as a “built up area” is not necessarily “Class F Airspace” and vice versa. The decision of the Appeal Panel was quashed and the decision of the Tribunal member was reinstated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civil Aviation Tribunal – Penalties – Double jeopardy – Kienapple rule – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Minister of Transport) v. Delco Aviation Ltd., [2002] F.C.J. No. 938, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 12, 2003, Blanchard ...