The Court granted an application for judicial review of a decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which had declined, on reconsideration, not to re-open an appeal decision in respect of the Applicant’s application for a disability pension. The Court found that there were no facts to support the Board’s finding that the Applicant’s disability was connected to an old hockey injury, and that a finding that there was no “new evidence” was unreasonable.

23. March 2010 0
Administrative Law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Disability – Pensions – Eligibility – Judicial review – Evidence – Fresh evidence – admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 104, 2010 FC 91, Federal Court, January 27, 2010, Harrington J. ...

The Appellant, Western Forest Products, successfully appealed a decision made by a chambers judge holding that in assessing stumpage to be paid to the province, it is not appropriate to rely on averages rather than actual amounts

22. September 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Forest Appeals Commission – Natural resources – Forestry – Stumpage fees – Judicial review – Witnesses – Evidence – Admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter British Columbia (Minister of Forests and Range) v. Forest Appeals Commission, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1616, 2009 BCCA 354, B.C. Court ...

Prestige Toys Ltd.’s appeal of the revocation of its registration under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act was dismissed. The Registrar’s cross-appeal with respect to the registration of Lioubimova, the sole officer and director of Prestige, was allowed because the Tribunal had failed to analyze any of the relevant evidence related to her wrongdoing.

22. September 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Motor Vehicle Dealers – Permits and licences – Revocation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Admissibility – Past conduct Prestige Toys Ltd. v. Ontario (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Registrar), [2009] O.J. No. 3437, Ontario Superior Court ...

The Appellant Lienaux appealed a decision of the Respondent Barristers’ Society (the “Respondent”), which had found him guilty of conduct unbecoming of a barrister. The Appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal found the majority of the rulings of the Respondent were reasonable and the standard of review was reasonableness. Lienaux was successful on one ground of appeal as the Court of Appeal held the Respondent’s decision to prohibit him from representing himself was not reasonable.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Self-representation – Judicial review – Fresh evidence – admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation Lienaux v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, [2009] N.S.J. No. 32, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, ...

A veterinarian appealed a decision of the Respondent Association, which had found him guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately trapping, handling, and marketing white-tailed deer. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Association’s decision, on the basis that it had admitted into evidence a videotaped statement without a correct consideration of the applicable principles, contrary to specific provisions in the Wildlife Act and in breach of the discipline committee’s duty of fairness.

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Hearsay evidence – admissibility – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Witnesses – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Standard of review – Correctness ...

The Appeals by three corporations and four individuals from findings of fraud and misrepresentation, and from sanctions imposed by the Securities Commission were dismissed where the Court held that the Commission was entitled to use interview evidence obtained during the investigative process

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Public interest – Judicial review – Hearings – Evidence – Interviews – Disclosure – Hearsay Evidence – admissibility Alberta (Securities Commission) v. Brost, [2008] A.J. No. 1071, Alberta Court of Appeal, October ...

Two pharmacies (the “Pharmacies”) were unsuccessful in their appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia refusing to grant an Order prohibiting the Duputy Minister of Health (the “Minister”) from relying on allegedly irrelvant considerations when reconsidering whether to terminate the Pharmacy Participation Agreements under which the Pharmacies had been permitted to dispense prescription drugs to customers through a government subsidy scheme known as PharmaCare

22. January 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial – Pharmacy Participation Agreements – Public interest – Pharmacists – Billing matters – Termination of contracts – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Admissibility – Criminal conviction Delivery Drugs Ltd. (c.o.b. Gastown Pharmacy) v. British Columbia (Deputy Minister ...

The Appellant appealed from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal, finding that he had violated provisions of the Human Rights Code when he terminated the employment of two Complainants. The Tribunal had ordered the Appellant to pay damages to the Complainants and also made three “public interest orders”. The Court varied the compensation awards and set aside the public interest orders, finding that they were unsupported by any reasons.

28. August 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Similar fact evidence – admissibility – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Natural justice Papa Joe’s Pizza v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2007] O.J. No. 2499, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 26, 2007, D.R. ...

The appeal by a nurse (Tomaszewska) of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario finding that she had committed acts of professional misconduct was dismissed where the Court held that Tomaszewska had not been denied procedural fairness in the hearing and the penalty was not patently unreasonable

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Disclosure – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Fresh evidence – admissibility Tomaszewska v. College of Nurses of Ontario, [2007] O.J. No. 1731, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 3, ...

The Applicant sought relief from the Court from an Appeal Tribunal that upheld the decision of a Board of Judges that found the Applicant was in violation of the Rules of Racing established by Horse Racing Alberta. The Court found that the appropriate standard of review was correctness. The Court quashed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision, and granted an Order of mandamus directing that there be no further action taken against the Applicant.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Mandamus Hennessy v. Horse Racing Alberta, [2006] A.J. No. 1613, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 15, 2006, Sanderman J. The ...