An individual (“Conway”) held in mental health facilities after being found not guilty of a criminal offence by reason of insanity was successful in his appeal from the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) that he was not capable of contenting to treatment with psychotropic medications

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Conway v. Jacques, [2005] O.J. No. 400, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 4, 2005, M.K. Fuerst J. ...

A dentist (“Dr. Drake”) was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of the decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the “Board”). The court found that the Board was acting reasonably in finding that the Complaints Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) had conducted an adequate investigation into a complaint that Dr. Drake had not been diligent in obtaining consent to treatment from a patient.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigations – Judicial review – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker Drake v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 755, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 2, 2005, G.D. Lane, A.M. Molloy and D.J. Power JJ. The mother of the complainant ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which had confirmed a finding of incapacity in respect of specified psychiatric treatment of the Applicant. The Court found the Board’s decision was entirely reasonable on the facts before it

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Best interest of incompetent adult – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Thompson v. Grant, [2005] O.J. No. 36, Ontario Superior Court ...

The court dismissed an application for judicial review and held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not breached the requirement of procedural fairness in not placing certain documents before the Commission and that the Commission’s exercise of discretion regarding a limitation period did not exceed its jurisdiction and was not in error

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Limitations – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hassaram v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 29, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 7, 2005, ...

The court dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court which had held that the Respondent Ontario Energy Board’s Gas Distribution Access Rule came within the Board’s jurisdiction and that the Board had followed the process required by its enabling Act in issuing the Rule

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Distribution – Powers under legislation – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Ontario (Energy Board), [2005] O.J. No. 33, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, M.A. Catzman, D.H. ...

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 ...

A motion was brought by the Respondents for an order striking out an application for judicial review of the decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the “Commission”) directing the Applicant Chief of Police (the “Chief”) to initiate a disciplinary hearing against a police constable on the ground that the constable may have committed misconduct in his capacity as an investigator in a homicide investigation. The Respondent’s application to stay the Chief’s application for judicial review was granted on the ground that the Chief’s application was premature.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Investigations – Disciplinary proceedings – Public interest – Public hearings – Effect of – Judicial review application – Procedural requirements and fairness – Stay of proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission York (Regional Municipality) Police v. Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), [2005] O.J. No. 222, Ontario Superior Court ...

An employee’s claim against her former employer under the Ontario Pay Equity Act was barred by virtue of the release and settlement executed by the employee upon her termination

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Settlements – Releases – Validity – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Bucyrus Blades of Canada Ltd. v. McKinley, [2005] O.J. No. 231, Ontario Superior Court ...