The appellant psychologist appealed a decision of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists finding her guilty of professional misconduct for failing to comply with the College’s Code of Ethics and issuing a reprimand. The College’s Discipline Committee had rejected the joint submission by the psychologist and College’s counsel on agreed facts and undertakings, and instead issued an order as to the appellant psychologist’s future practice. The College Council upheld the Discipline Committee’s decision. The appeal was allowed in part. The Court agreed that the appellant psychologist’s admissions as to the facts behind the charges were tantamount to guilty pleas. The Council’s decision to uphold the findings of guilty pleas was within the range of reasonable decisions. However, the Discipline Committee and Council erred in its application of section 32 of the Psychologists Act in requiring a reprimand given in every case where there was a breach of professional standards. As well, the process of rejecting the joint submission without an opportunity for further submissions from either counsel for the College or appellant psychologist was unreasonable. As a result, the reprimand was struck from the disposition.

25. June 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Psychologists – Psychologists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Nanson v. Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, [2013] S.J. No. 295, 2013 SKQB ...

The Saskatechewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application for judicial review by an applicant seeking to quash the Law Society’s decision refusing him admission to membership. The court held that as gatekeeper of admissions, the Law Society’s participatory role in judicial review was appropriate and necessary. The Admissions and Education Committee of the Law Society (the “Committee”) and Benchers’ decisions were reviewable on a reasonableness standard on questions of fact and credibility. The standard of correctness applied to questions of law and mixed fact and law. The Committee’s decision, affirmed by the Benchers, denying the applicant’s application for membership on the basis he had not satisfied the Committee of good character, fell within the range of reasonable outcomes having regard to evidence and credibility of witnesses. The Committee did not err in concluding the applicant had not met the onus of proving good character.

25. June 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Standing – Barristers and solicitors – Admission to profession – Judicial review – Disclosure – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness DeMaria v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, [2013] S.J. No. 292, 2013 SKQB 178, Saskatchewan ...

The appellant sought to have a decision of the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Association reversed on the basis that its failure to grant the appellant an adjournment constituted a breach of procedural fairness and a denial of natural justice. The Court allowed the appeal, noting that the public protection aspect of a speedy hearing was not a factor as the appellant was no longer working as a registered nurse, and that the serious consequences of the hearing warranted the appellant the right to be heard.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Nurses’ Association – Nurses – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Investigations – Disciplinary proceedings – Public interest – Hearings – Adjournment of hearing – Judicial review – Disclosure of records – Evidence – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Pittman v. Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Assn. ...

With respect to a tribunal’s findings of credibility, there is an important distinction between guessing, conjecture, and speculation on the one hand and drawing legal inferences from evidence where inferences can appropriately be drawn. In this case, the Court in a judicial review proceeding quashed one aspect of a tribunal’s credibility findings on the basis that it was unreasonable.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigations – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ali v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, [2013] S.J. No. 54, 2013 SKQB ...

The appellant Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority sucessfully appealed a lower court decision affirming a tribunal’s decision that the Health Authority acted unreasonably in the treatment of the respondent physician’s disruptive behaviour

26. February 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Physicians and surgeons – Disruptive behaviour – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority v. Dewar, [2013] S.J. No. 9, 2013 SKCA 3, Saskatchewan Court of ...

The Court upheld an Environmental Protection Order issued by the Minister of the Environment as valid under the Environmental Management and Protection Act. The Court held that the appellants had been properly notified of the Minister’s intent to issue the order, and that despite the fact that the appellants no longer occupied the property in question, the Order conformed with the “polluter pay” principle established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Environmental matters – Contaminated sites – Remediation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Envirogun Ltd. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment), [2012] S.J. No. 320, 2011 SKQB 339, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, September 16, 2011, J.E. McMurty J. The Appellants, Envirogun Ltd. and ...

The Applicant, Mental Inpatient Services, applied successfully for an order to involuntarily detain the respondent, P.D., and for committal for treatment at a psychiatric rehabilitation facility for a period not exceeding one year. The respondent was diagnosed to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia including exhibiting psychotic and delusional behaviors.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Mental Health Inpatient Services – Judicial review – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Adult in need of protection Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region (Mental Health Inpatient Services, Director) v. P.D., [2012] S.J. No. 235, 2012 SKQB 136, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, April 2, 2012, T.C. ...

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Worker’s Compensation Board and restored its decision to compensate an injured worker based on calculations made under a new policy implemented under the Workers’ Compensation Act

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mellor v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2012] S.J. No. 57, 2012 SKCA ...

Howard Johnson Inn (“Howard Johnson”) and their employee John Pontes (“Pontes”) were unsuccessful in appealing a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) finding that they had discriminated against a First Nations man (“Tataquason”)

22. November 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Equality rights – Judicial review – Bias – Compliance with legislation Howard Johnson Inn v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, [2011] S.J. No. 599, 2011 SKCA 110, Saskatchewan Court of ...

The Court held that the applicant was a member of the College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan at the time of the impugned conduct and at the commencement of the investigation and thus it was within the College’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint

25. October 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Dentists – Former member – Investigations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal Abouabdallah v. College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [2011] S.J. No. 526, 2011 SKCA 99, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 2, 2011, W.J. Vancise, R.K. ...