Where there is evidence before the decision-maker to support his decision, the court ought not itself consider the scientific and technical evidence

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Minister – Approval process – Environmental matters – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness Sorflaten v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Environment), [2018] N.S.J. No. 91, 2018 NSSC 55, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, March 20, 2018, J.L. Chipman J. The applicants sought ...

BC Supreme Court found Benchers improperly delegated their authority to the Law Society members the refusal to approve Trinity Western’s faculty of law program

25. January 2016 0
The Petitioners, a student and a University, successfully sought judicial review of a decision made by the Respondent (Law Society of British Columbia) to refuse approval for the University’s faculty of law program. Administrative law – Admission to profession – Approval process – Barristers and solicitors – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Correctness – Decisions ...

Application for judicial review of the Governor in Counsel’s decision that the significant adverse environmental effects that the Minister of the Environment determined would likely result were justified in the circumstances

19. November 2015 0
Application for judicial review of the Governor in Counsel’s decision that the significant adverse environmental effects that the Minister of the Environment determined would likely result from the Site C Clean Energy Project on the Peace River were justified in the circumstances. After determining that the reasonableness standard of review applied, and that a considerable ...

The petitioner, Pacific Booker Minerals Inc., owners of property on Morrison Lake, worked for several years to obtain an environmental assessment certificate under the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 43 (the “Certificate”), to allow it to construct and operate copper/gold and minerals mine next to Morrison Lake, 65 kilometres northeast of Smithers. In August 2012, the Ministers of Environment and of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas (the “Ministers”) received a final assessment report from the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Office which concluded that although the project “would not result in any significant adverse effects with the successful implementation of mitigation measures and conditions”, the Executive Director nevertheless recommended Ministers refuse to issue a certificate. Based on the Executive Director’s report, the Ministers refused to issue the Certificate. On judicial review, the Court quashed and set aside the Ministers’ decision, and ordered that the petitioner’s application for a certificate be remitted back to the Ministers for reconsideration, on the basis of procedural fairness grounds. In particular, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation and right to be able to respond to at least the essence of the adverse recommendations and the “additional factors” raised by the Executive Director in his final report. The Court further ordered that the petitioner and the various First Nation group intervenors, be provided with the Executive Director’s recommendations to the Ministers, and an opportunity to provide a response to the recommendations.

25. February 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Environmental Assessment Office – Approval process – Environmental matters – Environmental Assessment Certificate – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Legitimate expectations Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. v. British Columbia (Minister of the Environment), [2013] B.C.J. No. 2694, 2013 BCSC 2258, British ...

The individual Appellants, Stuart and Karen Shaw, unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Respondent Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”). The Commission had approved a new electrical transmission infrastructure project in the county of the Appellants.

22. January 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Utilities Commission – Approval process – Public interest – Powers under legislation – Natural resources – Electricity – Transmission – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Shaw v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), [2012] A.J. No. 1259, 2012 ...

Where a body of evidence suggests deficiencies beyond a petitioner’s proposal in a procurement process for contracts, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“Tribunal”) ought to have considered whether the evaluators’ procedures, in the procurement process, might have affected the integrity and efficiency of the procurement system more broadly than just the petitioner’s proposal. Additionally, the Tribunal ought to have considered the range of remedies, other than the remedy of compensation, sought by the petitioner.

28. September 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – International Trade Tribunal – Government contracts – Bidding and tendering – Procurements – Approval process – Remedies – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Almon Equipment Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 948, 2010 FCA 193, Federal Court of Appeal, July 20, ...

The application by an unsuccessful bidder on a government contract (“Bergevin”) for judicial review of a decision by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal was allowed where the Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of a contract awarded to the Bergevin’s competitor as the contract disqualified those involved in the planning process from bidding on the consulting contract

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – International Trade Tribunal – Government contracts – Procurement process – Approval process – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Remedies Bergevin v. Canada (Canadian International Development Agency), [2009] F.C.J. No. 30, Federal Court of Appeal, January 23, 2009, Letourneau, Nadon and Pelletier JJ.A. CIDA was ...

A drug manufacturer requested judicial review of a recommendation of the Respondent Agency. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant’s allegation that the Agency secretly or arbitrarily breached a duty of fairness by failing to publish the draft rules of a pilot project, and by failing to strictly follow the draft rules, was without merit.

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Government agencies – Government drug plans – Approval process – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure of rules Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, [2008] O.J. No. 4331, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 29, 2008, L. K. Ferrier, J. M. ...