Ms. Pritchard was terminated from employment with Sears Canada and filed a Human Rights complaint. The majority of the complaint was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Pritchard commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission’s refusal to deal with her complaint. During the course of the review Ms. Pritchard’s counsel requested a legal opinion that was provided to the commissioners by the Commission’s in-house counsel. The Commission argued that the opinion was privileged. The Divisional Court held that the opinion was not privileged. The decision of the three judge panel of the Divisional Court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the opinion was privileged.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review application – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – In-house legal opinion Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 215, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 29, 2003, Finlayson, Charron and Armstrong JJ.A. The issue raised in the appeal was whether a legal opinion prepared ...

The Appellant pharmacists were the sole shareholders in a pharmaceutical distribution company. The company was convicted of income tax evasion under the Income Tax Act. Following the company’s conviction, the Appellants were charged and convicted of professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Pharmacists. The pharmacists appealed to the court, arguing that breach of a taxing statute by a corporation is not conduct “relevant” to the practice of pharmacy. The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the committee’s decision met the standard.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Tax evasion – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Davies v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2003] O.J. No. 91, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 15, 2003, Blair, E. Macdonald and MacDougall JJ. The Appellants were pharmacists and members of ...

On the morning of the first day of a College hearing, Dr. Howatt requested an adjournment based on the report of his psychiatrist indicating that he was mentally ill and unable to instruct counsel. The College objected to the filing of the report unless the psychiatrist was present to be cross-examined. The Discipline Committee refused to adjourn the hearing and the College proceeded to call evidence. Dr. Howatt was found guilty on all counts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the refusal of the adjournment was a denial of natural justice. The application was allowed and the decision quashed.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Adjournment of hearing – Standard of review – Reasonableness Howatt v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 138, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 21, 2003, Carnwath, Whalen and MacDougall ...

The applicants were unsuccessful in seeking to quash summonses issued by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Environment to appear before it with respect to an examination into the spread of the “potato wart” disease and its potential impact on the potato industry in Prince Edward Island

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Legislative Assembly – Committees – Constitutional law – Jurisdiction – Judicial review Canada (Attorney General) v. Prince Edward Island (Legislative Assembly), [2003] P.E.I.J. No. 7, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, January 14, 2003, Cheverie J. As a result of the discovery of the spread of “potato wart” disease from Newfoundland ...

Documents, specifically expert reports, created in the course of an investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.165 (the “Act”), because they were “advice or recommendations developed … for a public body”, and exempt pursuant to section 13 of the Act. The documents were not exempt from disclosure on the grounds they were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Definition – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – Expert reports – Legal advice privilege – Litigation privilege – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Delay College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2779, ...

The Health Professions Appeal Board (the “Board”) conceded it had exceeded its jurisdiction by making findings of gross criminal misconduct against a physician and relying on materials which were never disclosed to the physician or his counsel. The Board agreed that its decision should be quashed but submitted that the matter should be remitted back for a new review before a differently constituted panel of the Board. The Court of Appeal refused to remit the matter back to the Board, and found that there were exceptional circumstances (the interest of the public in the matter was remote and the delay was serious) which warranted the exercise of its discretion to refuse to remit.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Discretion of court – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Tribunal decisions – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Delay – Public interest Rathé v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), [2002] O.J. No. 4787, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 6, 2002, Blair, ...

A tribunal with a statutory right of appearance in a review of its own decision is limited in its participation to explaining the record before it and making representations relating to jurisdiction. “Jurisdiction” in this context does not include the transgression of the authority of a tribunal by its failure to adhere to the rules of natural justice.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Right to appear in a review of its own decision – Judicial review – Application for intervenor status – Bias Eckervogt v. British Columbia (Minister of Employment and Investment), [2002] B.C.J. No.2755, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 10, 2002, Smith J.A. The Appellant applied for compensation ...

Regulations made by an agricultural commodity board were not sufficiently framed to empower it to charge a fee for quotas for the marketing or production of chicken. The power to impose a fee, levy, or anything in the nature of a tax in the regulation of an industry must be explicitly conferred by the enabling legislation.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Legislation – Ultra vires Oulton v. Chicken Farmers of Nova Scotia, [2002] N.S.J. No. 513, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, December 5, 2002, Saunders, Chipman and Hamilton JJ.A. The Respondent chicken producers had been, for 20 years, on a waiting list maintained by the Chicken Farmers of ...

The Commercial Appeals Commission, upholding a decision of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia, has a duty to give independent consideration to an appropriate penalty and reasons for imposing that penalty on a hearing de novo, even in the absence of a submission on penalty

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Real estate agents – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Commercial Appeals Commission – Hearing de novo – Duty to consider penalties Wong v. Real Estate Council of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2786, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 13, 2002, Ryan, Mackenzie and Thackray JJ.A. The Real ...

On appeal from a decision of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”) involving s. 43(4) of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, it was held that the CRTC did not err in law, exceed its jurisdiction or improperly exercise its discretion in rendering its decision with respect to the terms and conditions sought to be imposed by the city of Vancouver on the Respondent, Ledcor Industries Ltd., which was seeking access to the municipality’s roadways to install fibre optic lines

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission – Jurisdiction – Municipalities – Power to enact by-laws Federation of Canadian Municipalities v. AT & T Canada Corp., [2002] F.C.J. No. 1777, Federal Court of Appeal, December 17, 2002, Létourneau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A. This was an appeal from a decision of ...