International arbitration award from New York was recognized and enforced in Ontario, despite party’s argument that it was not yet “binding” within the meaning of the Model Law as they still intended to argue issues of costs before the arbitrator

18. September 2018 0
Administrative law – Commercial Arbitrations – Arbitration and Award – Enforcement of Foreign Award – Judicial review – Appeals – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Popack v. Lipszyc, [2018] O.J. No. 3716, 2018 ONCA 635, Ontario Court of Appeal, July 12, 2018, D.H. Doherty, D.M. Brown and I.V.B. Nordheimer JJ.A. Popack ...

Whether a child-client’s litigation records with the Children’s Lawyer for Ontario are subject to a parent’s freedom of information request

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Privacy Commissioner – Custody and control – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure of records – Public body – Solicitor-client privilege Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2018] O.J. ...

Decisions of law societies not to accredit proposed law school at Trinity Western University reasonable

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Law Societies – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of Religion – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of Review – Reasonableness Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2018] S.C.J. No. 32 and [2018] S.C.J. No. 33, ...

This case considers the appropriateness of advancing new arguments on judicial review, not considered by the original decision-maker, and how the court ought to address those issues. The appellant in this case advanced new Charter arguments that were first raised with the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded it would be inappropriate for it to hear these arguments for the first time without a complete factual record. The matter was remitted back to a new panel for consideration.

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Human rights complaints – Religion – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Discrimination Webber Academy Foundation v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission Director), [2018] A.J. No. 689, 2018 ABCA 207, ...

This case involves judicial review of a decision of the Landlord and Tenancy Board, and subsequent decision of the chamber’s judge upholding that decision, in which the Board granted an application to evict the appellants on the basis that their conduct was impairing the safety of others at a mobile home complex. The primary argument advanced was that the appellants did not have proper notice of the grounds for eviction. The court rejected this argument and affirmed the decision of the Board.

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Landlord and Tenancy Board – Fresh evidence – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Landlord and tenant – Eviction 2276761 Ontario Inc. v. Overall, [2018] O.J. No. 2730, 2018 ONSC 3264, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 24, 2018, R.J. Harper, F.L. Myers and W.D. ...

This case involves judicial review of a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch finding that a non-profit community housing guest policy was discriminatory and harmed the residents. The court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable.

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements PHS Community Services Society v. Swait, [2018] B.C.J. No. 958, 2018 BCSC 824, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 18, 2018, N. Sharma J. ...

Where a hearing panel’s penalty decision falls within a reasonable range of outcomes, deference should be given to that committee’s decision in light of its expertise

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Sexual relations with patients – Suspensions College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Peirovy, [2018] OJ No 2341, ...

A prior penalty decision can be considered by a hearing panel in making a subsequent penalty decision, even if the prior penalty is under review, depending on the wording of the governing legislation

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Law Societies – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Suspensions Law Society of British Columbia v. Perrick, [2018] BCJ No 785, 2018 BCCA 169, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 2, 2018, M.E. Saunders, ...

A strata sought a judicial stay of proceeding following a Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) decision to deny the strata’s request to be represented by counsel, and subsequent decision to deny the strata’s request for a stay of proceedings pending its application for judicial review regarding the decision to deny the strata’s request for counsel

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Civil Resolution Tribunal – Right to legal counsel – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – Remedies – Interlocutory injunctions – Condominiums – Strata corporations Strata Plan NW 2575 v. Booth, [2018] BCJ No 811, 2018 BCSC 715, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 3, 2018, DeWitt-Van Oosten J. A ...

Clorox unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks rejecting Clorox’s opposition to trademark registrations filed by Chlorotec

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Registrar of Trademarks – Fresh evidence – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Intellectual property Clorox Company of Canada Ltd. v. Chlorotec s.e.c., [2018] F.C.J. No. 408, 2018 FC 408, Federal Court of Canada, April 16, 2018, S. Grammond J. Clorox appealed the decision ...