Ms. Pritchard was terminated from employment with Sears Canada and filed a Human Rights complaint. The majority of the complaint was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Pritchard commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission’s refusal to deal with her complaint. During the course of the review Ms. Pritchard’s counsel requested a legal opinion that was provided to the commissioners by the Commission’s in-house counsel. The Commission argued that the opinion was privileged. The Divisional Court held that the opinion was not privileged. The decision of the three judge panel of the Divisional Court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the opinion was privileged.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review application – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – In-house legal opinion Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 215, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 29, 2003, Finlayson, Charron and Armstrong JJ.A. The issue raised in the appeal was whether a legal opinion prepared ...

The Appellant pharmacists were the sole shareholders in a pharmaceutical distribution company. The company was convicted of income tax evasion under the Income Tax Act. Following the company’s conviction, the Appellants were charged and convicted of professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Pharmacists. The pharmacists appealed to the court, arguing that breach of a taxing statute by a corporation is not conduct “relevant” to the practice of pharmacy. The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the committee’s decision met the standard.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Tax evasion – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Davies v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2003] O.J. No. 91, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 15, 2003, Blair, E. Macdonald and MacDougall JJ. The Appellants were pharmacists and members of ...

On the morning of the first day of a College hearing, Dr. Howatt requested an adjournment based on the report of his psychiatrist indicating that he was mentally ill and unable to instruct counsel. The College objected to the filing of the report unless the psychiatrist was present to be cross-examined. The Discipline Committee refused to adjourn the hearing and the College proceeded to call evidence. Dr. Howatt was found guilty on all counts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the refusal of the adjournment was a denial of natural justice. The application was allowed and the decision quashed.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Adjournment of hearing – Standard of review – Reasonableness Howatt v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 138, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 21, 2003, Carnwath, Whalen and MacDougall ...

The Health Professions Appeal Board (the “Board”) conceded it had exceeded its jurisdiction by making findings of gross criminal misconduct against a physician and relying on materials which were never disclosed to the physician or his counsel. The Board agreed that its decision should be quashed but submitted that the matter should be remitted back for a new review before a differently constituted panel of the Board. The Court of Appeal refused to remit the matter back to the Board, and found that there were exceptional circumstances (the interest of the public in the matter was remote and the delay was serious) which warranted the exercise of its discretion to refuse to remit.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Discretion of court – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Tribunal decisions – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Delay – Public interest Rathé v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), [2002] O.J. No. 4787, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 6, 2002, Blair, ...

Idowu was successful in his application to set aside an arbitrator’s award on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias where the court found that the law firm for the opposing party had proposed the arbitrator but had failed to notify Idowu that two of their lawyers were directors of the company which employed the arbitrator and that one of their partners had a financial interest in that company.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Judicial review – Bias Idowu v. York Condominium Corp. No. 128, [2002] O.J. No. 2102, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 21, 2002m Nordheimer J. Idowu owned three units in York Condominium. An issue arose as to whether Idowu was using these units as “rooming houses” contrary ...

The Corporation of Schreiber and concerned residents brought an application seeking judicial review of a decision by the local School Board to close a high school located in the town. The court dismissed the application for judicial review holding that the Applicants had not met the burden of establishing that the Board had committed a procedural error in reaching its decision to close the school that was so fundamental that it affected the basis of the Board’s decision.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Schools – Closures – School boards – Jurisdiction – Boards and tribunals – Procedural fairness – Judicial review application Schreiber (Township) v. Superior Greenstone District School Board, [2002] O.J. No. 3303, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court – Thunder Bay, Ontario, August 23, 2002, Kozak J. Lake Superior High School has two campuses, one ...

A Referee (“Sargeant”) hearing a claim under the Employment Standards Act decided that he was not entitled to consider a limitation period issue in a claim by an employee (“Halloran”) against his former employer with respect to a compensation package offered upon Halloran’s termination. The Referee’s decision was overturned by the Divisional Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was unconscionable for the company to invoke a limitation period to deny Halloran’s claim as there had been a fraudulent concealment of the existence of a cause of action against the company.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Employment standards – Employer’s representations – Termination package – Fraudulent concealment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patently unreasonable decision – Limitations Halloran v. Sargeant, [2002] O.J. No. 3248, Ontario Court of Appeal, August 27, 2002, McMurtry C.J.O., Weiler and Armstrong JJ.A. Halloran was employed by Crown Cork & Seal for 31 ...

Butterworth failed in his application seeking a stay of his disciplinary hearing before a committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario where the court found that prospective damage to Butterworth’s personal and professional reputation did not constitute “irreparable harm”

23. April 2002 0
Administrative law – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Stay of proceedings – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness test Butterworth v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, [2001] O.J. No. 5265, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, August 10, 2001, MacFarland J. Butterworth, a veterinarian, was scheduled to have his case heard before a ...

This is an Application for a Judicial Review of a Direction issued by Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the “Commission”) directing the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board (the “Board”) to require Sheila Dunlop to complete the basic recruit training program at the Ontario Police College. On review, the court quashed the direction of the Commission on the basis that the Commission erred in law in finding that the “initial period of training” in the governing legislation mandated completion of the basic recruit training program.

23. April 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness test – Police – Training requirements Ottawa-Carleton (Region) Police Services Board v. Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), [2001] O.J. No. 5498, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 14, 2001, Zuber, Matlow and Cusinato JJ. Sheila Dunlop was a member ...

A member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) sought judicial review of the Registrar’s decision to amend a Notice of Hearing after the hearing commenced. The application was dismissed as it was premature since the discipline panel had not been given an opportunity to decide if it would hear the new charges.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – Amendment of notice of hearing – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings Henderson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2001] O.J. No. 5367, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 22, 2001, Then, J. A discipline panel of the College accepted jurisdiction over ...