The court held that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal was without jurisdiction over a complaint arising from the exclusion of women members from the Men’s Lounge at the Marine Drive Golf Club as the Men’s Lounge was not an “accommodations, service or facility customarily available to the public”

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Private clubs – Customarily available to the public – Definition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Marine Drive Golf Club v. Buntain, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2181, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

An application for judicial review by the Applicant in respect of two discretionary conditions of the Applicant’s long-term offender order which were confirmed by the National Parole Board (“NPB”) was dismissed. The NPB’s decision to impose a condition that the Applicant take medication was correct and, even though such a condition offended section 7 of the Charter, it could be saved under section 1. The no contact condition was reasonable and was therefore not subject to judicial review.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – National Parole Board hearings – Discretionary conditions – Long-term offenders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Deacon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1827, Federal Court, November 4, 2005, Teitelbaum J. The Applicant brought an application for ...

On judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the court held that the Tribunal was within its statutory jurisdiction in making the damage awards it did and it did not err in finding liability for discrimination on the facts before it

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Remedies – Certiorari – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Crown immunity – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness British Columbia v. Bolster, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2365, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 27, 2005, Parrett J. The Province ...

The application of the Respondent City of Toronto (the “City”) that a member of the panel of the Divisional Court recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed. The moving parties, by their own conduct, had waived their right to raise the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias and, in addition, the moving parties failed to establish that there was in fact a reasonable apprehension of bias on behalf of the subject judge.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Bias – Judiciary – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test SOS-Save Our St. Clair Inc. v. Toronto (City), [2005] O.J. No. 4729, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 3, 2005, P.T. Matlow, S.E. Greer and E.M. Macdonald JJ. On October 11, 2005, a panel of the Divisional Court released a ...

Losenno’s appeal from the dismissal of his application for judicial review of a Human Rights Commission decision not to refer Losenno’s complaint about his former employer to a Board of Inquiry was dismissed where the court found the Commission’s decision was not patently unreasonable

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Settlement offers – Effect of – Refusal to refer to Board of Inquiry – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Losenno v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2005] O.J. No. ...

An appeal of a decision of an applications judge that the evidence in support of applications for judicial review be restricted to the certified Tribunal record was allowed. The applications judge erred in failing to consider that evidence outside of the administrative record can be considered where the grounds for review are any of the various forms of jurisdictional error.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review applications – Evidence – admissibility – Jurisdiction McFayden v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1817, Federal Court of Appeal, November 2, 2005, Desjardins, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A. An applications judge granted the Respondent’s motion ...

The judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Transport was dismissed as the court held that the Minister acted in good faith, the principles of natural justice were observed, and that the decision was not based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Port divestiture – Judicial review – Natural justice and legitimate expectations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Newfoundland and Labrador v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1825, Federal Court, November 2, 2005, Harrington J. In March 2003, Transport ...

During a judicial review of its own decision, the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (the “Commissioner”) was not permitted to argue the merits of its decision; however, it could explain the record and demonstrate that its decision was not patently unreasonable

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Privacy Commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] B.C.J. No. 2394, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 3, 2005, ...

The Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia (the “College”) to terminate him from his position as registrar of the College. The petition was dismissed as the judge found that the College met its requirement of procedural fairness. On appeal, the Court held that the reviewing judge erred in mixing the merits of the decision to terminate with the process of termination. Furthermore, she made a palpable error of fact in finding that the Petitioner had notice of the grounds for termination when he had no prior notice of a report accusing him of dishonesty and no opportunity to address the accusation. This amounted to a denial of procedural fairness. The Court ordered that he be re-instated to his position as registrar, with full back pay and benefits less earnings from other employment.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners – Natural justice – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness Wong v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2219, British Columbia Court of Appeal, October 21, ...

Following a finding of professional misconduct, a Hearing Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) ordered that the former member be disbarred. The LSUC Appeal Panel set aside the penalty order and substituted its penalty that the former member receive ongoing medical treatment, file medical reports, and practice law only as an employee of an approved member of the LSUC. On appeal by the LSUC, the Court found that the Appeal Panel stepped out of its proper role as a “first review tribunal” and erroneously took on a trial de novo role and proceeded as an initial hearing panel. The Court set aside the penalty imposed by the Appeal Panel and reinstated the Hearing Panel’s penalty of disbarment.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Disbarment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Appeal process – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness Law Society of Upper Canada v. Crozier, [2005] O.J. No. 4520, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 24, 2005, J.G.J. O’Driscoll, ...