The Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles confirming an administrative driving prohibition. The BCSC held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the Adjudicator’s decision was patently unreasonable and remitted the matter to re-hearing.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Breathalyser test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Superintendent of Motor Vehicles – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Swanson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), ...

This was an application pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 by the Petitioner for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of an Adjudicator acting under section 94.5 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.318 (“MVA”). The Adjudicator’s decision confirmed an administrative driving prohibition imposed on the Petitioner by a police officer. The Court held that the applicable standard of review with respect to the decision of the Adjudicator, based upon a finding of fact, is patent unreasonableness. The Court held that the Adjudicator’s decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Breathalyser test – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Superintendent of Motor Vehicles – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness LeBlanc v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2006] B.C.J. No. 3237, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 14, 2006, Bruce J. A police officer ...

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Preston Crossing Properties (“Preston”) of an assessment decision by the Municipal Board Committee upholding an assessor’s application of a 72% market adjustment factor to the buildings, based on a notable traffic increase to the buildings rendering them more valuable than other nearby buildings. The Committee did not err in concluding that Preston was given full opportunity to develop and state its case before the Board of Revision and in upholding the market adjustment factor of .72 (as opposed to .61 in valuing buildings Preston regarded as comparable to its own) for the purposes of the assessment.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Property assessment – Market adjustment factor – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Assessment Appeal Board – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Fairness – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Preston Cross Properties Inc. v. Saskatoon (City), [2006] S.J. No. 335, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, ...

An appeal of a decision of an applications judge that the evidence in support of applications for judicial review be restricted to the certified Tribunal record was allowed. The applications judge erred in failing to consider that evidence outside of the administrative record can be considered where the grounds for review are any of the various forms of jurisdictional error.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review applications – Evidence – admissibility – Jurisdiction McFayden v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1817, Federal Court of Appeal, November 2, 2005, Desjardins, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A. An applications judge granted the Respondent’s motion ...

Following a finding of professional misconduct, a Hearing Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) ordered that the former member be disbarred. The LSUC Appeal Panel set aside the penalty order and substituted its penalty that the former member receive ongoing medical treatment, file medical reports, and practice law only as an employee of an approved member of the LSUC. On appeal by the LSUC, the Court found that the Appeal Panel stepped out of its proper role as a “first review tribunal” and erroneously took on a trial de novo role and proceeded as an initial hearing panel. The Court set aside the penalty imposed by the Appeal Panel and reinstated the Hearing Panel’s penalty of disbarment.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Disbarment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Appeal process – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness Law Society of Upper Canada v. Crozier, [2005] O.J. No. 4520, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 24, 2005, J.G.J. O’Driscoll, ...

The Court dismissed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s appeal of a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the Appeals Commission. The privative clause and the statutory appeal provision limited the right of appeal from a decision by the Appeals Commission to pure questions of law. The reviewing judge did not err in finding that the Appeals Commission decision could rely on new medical evidence since strict rules of evidence did not apply to a hearing.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Procedural fairness – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Hearings – Rules of evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Appeals Commission, [2005] A.J. No. ...

On judicial review, the applicant, Siksika Nation (“Siksika”), sought to quash the decision of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (the “Board”) granting a liquor licence to the respondent, Walji Holdings Limited (“Walji”) on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and breached the principles of natural justice. The Court, in light of the applicable law and the strict standard of review, found that the decision to grant the licence was not patently unreasonable and therefore did not warrant judicial intervention. However, the Court did note that the Alberta gaming and liquor legislation was deficient in failing to enumerate public interest as a consideration in granting licences but, being constrained by the wording of the legislation, had to dismiss the application for judicial review.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Powers under legislation – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Siksika Nation v. Walji ...

Owen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the offence of second degree murder committed in 1978 while he was in a psychotic state induced by drug abuse. He was then detained in various mental health institutions and was gradually released into the community. However, he began to commit violent offences upon release. In 2000, the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), concluded that Owen continued to constitute a significant danger to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. At the Court of Appeal, the Crown wished to tender fresh Affidavit evidence alleging that, since the date of the Board hearing, Owen had punched another patient, threatened to kill another patient, and was found in the possession of prohibited drugs. The Court of Appeal declined to admit this fresh evidence, and proceeded to review the Board’s Order based on evidence available at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Board’s Order as unreasonable and made a direction that Owen be absolutely discharged. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the Board.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Detention – Danger to public – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. Owen, [2002] S.C.J. No. 31, Supreme Court of Canada, June 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, ...