A decision to grant or refuse public interest standing is a discretionary decision and is afforded appellate deference. The Court of Appeal affirmed the chambers judge decision, finding that the chambers judge correctly identified and expressly addressed each of the applicable factors when exercising his discretion to decide not to grant public interest standing to the appellants.

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standing – Parties – Appeals Zoocheck Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry), [2019] A.J. No. 666, 2019 ABCA 208, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 24, 2019, B.K. O’Ferrall, T.W. Wakeling and J. Strekaf JJ.A. The applicants’ concern was with the care of an elephant named Lucy, ...

Court determined that limitation period for judicial review of administrative decisions in New Brunswick begins when the affected parties are notified of the decision or when there is “public availability” of the decision, not from the date of the decision itself.

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Application – Appeals – Limitations Laliberté v. Kedgwick (Rural Community), [2019] N.B.J. No. 116, 2019 NBCA 38, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, May 16, 2019, J.C.M. Richard, M.E.L. Larlee and K.A. Quigg JJ.A. In New Brunswick, judicial review of administrative action is governed ...

The Landlord/Appellant, Aarti Investments Ltd., was unsuccessful in attempting to appeal a decision of a Chambers Judge. The Chambers Judge had set aside a decision of a residential tenancy branch arbitrator, which had granted an Order of Possession to the Landlord.

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Judicial review – Appeals – Legislative compliance – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements Aarti Investments Ltd. v. Bauman, [2019] B.C.J. No. 840, 2019 BCCA 165, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 14, 2019, P.M Willcock, R. Goepel and G. Dickson JJ.A. The Appellant/Landlord, Aarti Investments ...

The Court held that the Applicant, Mr. Kozina, had standing to seek judicial review of a decision made by the Respondent, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board. The Board had decided to dismiss Mr. Kozina’s complaint alleging that excessive force was used by two police officers.

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Law Enforcement Review Board – Judicial review – Application – Legislative compliance – Police – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming Kozina v. Edmonton (City) Police Services, [2019] A.J. No 611, 2019 ABQB 355, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, May 13, 2019, B.R. Burrows J. The Applicant, Kazimierz Kozina, was arrested by ...

The Appellants (several physicians and physician groups in Ontario) were unsuccessful in appealing a decision of the Divisional Court. The Appellants had applied to the Divisional Court to challenge the constitutionality of policies enacted by the Respondent, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which required physicians to provide an “effective referral” when they had a religious objection to providing a medical service (e.g. abortion, medical assistance in dying, etc.).

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of Religion – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Appeals – Physicians and surgeons – Statutory provisions – Public interest Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2019] O.J. No. 2515, 2019 ONCA 393, Ontario Court ...

Issue on review involved the Winnipeg Police Service’s new practice of including non-conviction information on criminal record checks in exceptional circumstances. Court of Appeal returned matter to Queen’s Bench for fresh hearing due to ambiguities in the record before the application judge.

18. June 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Applications – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Remedies – Declaratory relief – Police – Criminal records request Kalo v. Winnipeg (City) Police Service, [2019] M.J. No. 106, 2019 MBCA 46, Manitoba Court of Appeal, April 29, 2019, F.M. Steel, W.J. Burnett and K.I. Simonsen JJ.A. A prospective employer required ...

Court determined that email chains that did not include the clients’ lawyers, but wherein the clients discussed the lawyers’ privileged opinions and work products, were protected by solicitor-client privilege

18. June 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Applications – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Access to information – Solicitor-client privilege – Government Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2019] A.J. No. 466, 2019 ABQB 274, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 17, 2019, S.N. Mandziuk J. As part of ...

The federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act governs applications for leave to sue where a receiver is appointed under both that legislation and the provincial Courts of Justice Act

18. June 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., [2019] O.J. No. 1742, 2019 ONCA 269, Ontario Court of Appeal, April 8, 2019, K.N. Feldman, D. Paciocco and B. Zarnett JJ.A. Astoria filed for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and ...

Relief from forfeiture under Law and Equity Act does not apply to statutory forfeiture under Residential Tenancy Act

18. June 2019 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Remedies – Relief from forfeiture – Judicial review – Appeals – Compliance with legislation Seignoret v. Bakonyi Holdings Ltd., [2019] B.C.J. No. 516, 2019 BCCA 105, British Columbia Court of Appeal, April 2, 2019, P.M. Willcock, G. Dickson and G.J. Fitch JJ.A. In 2017, the landlord ...

This case considers when an application for judicial review will be moot and, if so, when the court will nonetheless exercise its residual discretion to hear the issue. The context was a complaint made with respect to the conduct of a parenting coordinator, mediator and arbitrator appointed under the Ontario Family Law Act to act as an arbitrator in a family law dispute.

21. May 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Mootness Cuhaci v. Ontario College of Social Workers, [2019] O.J. No 1383, 2019 ONSC 1801, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 20, 2019, A. Mullins, F.L. Myers and L.G. Favreau JJ. When is an issue raised on an application for judicial review moot? Even if moot, in what circumstances ...