The Respondent (“Starson”) was admitted to hospital after being found not criminally responsible for making death threats, whereupon the Ontario Review Board ordered his detention for 12 months. At that time, Starson refused medical treatment proposed by his psychiatrist for his bipolar disorder. The Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario (the “Board”) held that Starson lacked the capacity to refuse treatment. The Ontario Superior Court overturned the finding of incapacity and the Court of Appeal upheld this finding. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board misapplied the statutory test for capacity and improperly allowed its own conception of Starson’s best interests to influence its finding. The Board’s finding of incapacity could not be upheld.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Right to refuse medical treatment – Capacity – Test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Starson v. Swayze, [2003] S.C.J. No. 33, Supreme Court of Canada, June ...

The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (the “HLDAA”)dictates that disputes over collective agreements in Ontario hospitals and nursing homes have to be resolved by compulsory arbitration. The Minister of Labour appointed retired judges to chair arbitration boards. The Respondents, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Service Employees International Union, objected to the appointments on the basis that the retired judges lacked expertise, experience, tenure, and independence from government. The Appellant Minister of Labour in exercising his power of appointment under the HLDAA is required to be satisfied that the prospective chairpersons are not only independent and impartial but possess appropriate labour relations expertise and are recognised in the labour relations community as generally acceptable to both management and labour. The appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The majority found that the appointments were patently unreasonable because the Minister expressly excluded relevant factors that went to the heart of the legislative scheme.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitrators – Appointment – Bias – Ministerial powers – Judicial review – Statutory powers – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] S.C.J. No. 28, Supreme Court of Canada, May 16, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iaccobucci, Major, Bastarache, ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia succeeded on its appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to set aside the order of the appeal judge’s decision overturning an Inquiry Committee’s finding of fact leading to a conviction for infamous conduct. The court held that the proper standard of review for findings of fact was reasonableness.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Suspensions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] S.C.J. No. 18, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, ...

The Law Society of New Brunswick succeeded on its appeal in having the findings of the Court of Appeal set aside and the sanction of disbarment of a lawyer who had been found to have committed professional misconduct reinstated

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Disbarment – Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.J. No. 17, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ. The respondent, Mr. ...

Although job related information pertaining to RCMP officers: (a) the list of historical postings, their status and date, (b) the list of ranks and the dates they achieved those ranks, (c) their years of service, and (d) their anniversary date of service, constituted “personal information” as defined under s.3 of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.-P-21, it should nonetheless be disclosed because it fell within the “position or functions of the individual exception” under s.3(j). The information did not reveal anything about the competence or divulge any personal opinion given outside the course of employment, but rather provided information relevant to understanding the functions performed by the officers.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Exceptions – Federal employees – Personal information – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2003] S.C.J. No. 7, Supreme Court of Canada, March 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and ...

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal of a B.C. Court of Appeal decision setting aside the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court which quashed a school board resolution declining to approve three books depicting same-sex parented families as supplementary learning resources for use in kindergarten/grade one classrooms. The majority concluded that the School Board’s decision was unreasonable in the context of the educational scheme laid down by the legislature. The question whether the books should be approved as supplementary learning resources was remanded to the Board’s consideration according to the criteria laid out in the curriculum guidelines and the broad principles of tolerance and non-sectarianism underlying the School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – School boards – Powers and duties – Selection of books – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] S.C.J. No. 87, Supreme Court of Canada, December 20, 2002, McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. ...

A journalist made a request under the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, R.S.Q., c. A-2.1 (the “Act”) for access to a document concerning the expenses of Members of the National Assembly which described the Member’s total payroll and expenses for employing staff and paying for professional services. The Commission d’accès à l’information (the “Commissioner”) refused disclosure of the information under ss. 34 and 57 of the Act; finding that the requested document had been prepared “for” a Member and could not be disclosed under s. 34 without the Member’s consent and that the Member could not be considered to constitute a public body within the meaning of s. 57.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Access to information – Production of records – Public body – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Macdonell v. Quebec (Commission d’accès à l’information), [2002] S.C.J. No. 71, Supreme Court of Canada, November 1, 2002, McLachlin C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. A journalist ...