The British Columbia College of Teachers (the “College”) was unsuccessful on appeal from the Supreme Court judge’s decision to reduce the penalty for a teacher (“Mitchell”) who had engaged in a sexual relationship with a former student

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Appeals – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Publication ban Mitchell v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2005] B.C.J. No. 269, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 16, ...

The court held that the Capital District Health Authority (“Capital Health”) was not bound by a settlement agreement between the CEO of Capital Health and a cardiologist (“Dr. Horne”) with respect to Dr. Horne’s hospital privileges. The CEO had neither actual nor ostensible authority to enter into a settlement on behalf of Capital Health and Capital Health had no power to delegate authority with respect to medical staff privileges.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Health authorities – Statutory powers – Delegated authority – Settlements – Validity – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness Horne v. Capital District Health Authority, [2005] N.S.J. No. 85, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, February 23, 2005, D. Hall J. Dr. ...

An operator of a telecommunication system (“GT”) was unsuccessful in its application for judicial review of a decision of a municipal government board (the “Board”) relating to the assessment of GT’s data assets.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Municipal boards – Property assessment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Privative clauses GT Group Telecom Services Corp v. Alberta (Municipal Government Board), [2005] A.J. No. 215, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 15, 2005, Hawco J. GT operated a telecommunication system in Alberta. ...

A dentist (“Dr. Drake”) was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of the decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the “Board”). The court found that the Board was acting reasonably in finding that the Complaints Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) had conducted an adequate investigation into a complaint that Dr. Drake had not been diligent in obtaining consent to treatment from a patient.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigations – Judicial review – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker Drake v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 755, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 2, 2005, G.D. Lane, A.M. Molloy and D.J. Power JJ. The mother of the complainant ...

An employer’s appeal of a decision of the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal (“WCAT”) was dismissed when the court found there was evidence to support the WCAT’s conclusion that an intense meeting with a supervisor was a “traumatic event” such that the worker’s subsequent stress condition was an “accident” within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Accident – Definition – Traumatic event – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton-Victoria v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2005] N.S.J. No. 75, Nova Scotia Court ...

The Court found that a decision of the Chief Review Commissioner of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Committee to refuse to allow the deduction of legal fees paid by the Applicant, when determining the amount of CPP disability benefits to be offset from workers compensation benefits, was neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Legal fees deductibility – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Williams v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2004] N.J. No. 443, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, December 23, 2004, Orsborn ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which had confirmed a finding of incapacity in respect of specified psychiatric treatment of the Applicant. The Court found the Board’s decision was entirely reasonable on the facts before it

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Best interest of incompetent adult – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Thompson v. Grant, [2005] O.J. No. 36, Ontario Superior Court ...

The court dismissed an application for judicial review and held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not breached the requirement of procedural fairness in not placing certain documents before the Commission and that the Commission’s exercise of discretion regarding a limitation period did not exceed its jurisdiction and was not in error

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Limitations – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hassaram v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 29, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 7, 2005, ...

The court found that the Minister of Learning had acted outside his jurisdiction in refusing to refer two notices of appeal from the Appellants, relating to their teaching positions, to a Board of Reference

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Employment contracts – Appeal process – Ministerial powers – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Statutory powers – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Mandamus Coulthard v. Alberta (Minister of Learning), [2004] A.J. No. 1586, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 2, 2004, Moreau J. The two ...

The court dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court which had held that the Respondent Ontario Energy Board’s Gas Distribution Access Rule came within the Board’s jurisdiction and that the Board had followed the process required by its enabling Act in issuing the Rule

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Distribution – Powers under legislation – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Ontario (Energy Board), [2005] O.J. No. 33, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, M.A. Catzman, D.H. ...