Alberta Court of Appeal upholds a decision from the Council of the Alberta Association of Architects (“Association”) that held: (i) an architect engaged in architectural practice without Association registration is not immune from regulatory discipline and (ii) an architect that de-registers with the Association after a complaint has been filed but prior to a disciplinary proceeding is not immune from prosecution and sanction

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Association of Architects – Architects – Governance – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – De-registration – Unauthorized practice – Public interest – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation  – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias Ho v. Alberta Assn. of Architects, [2015] A.J. No. 186, 2015 ABCA ...

A forestry company (“Irving”) was partly successful on appeal from a finding of the respondent, North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board (the “Board”), which had held that the various forest product marketing boards had the authority to regulate stumpage agreements

19. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Marketing Boards – Natural resources – Forestry – Stumpage fees – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Bias – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter J.D. Irving Ltd. v. North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board, [2014] N.B.J. No. 162, 2014 NBCA 42, New Brunswick Court of ...

Appeal from decision of Ontario Securities Commission finding appellants contravened Securities Act

24. December 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Stock brokers – Professional governance and discipline – Competence – Investigations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias Taylor v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2013] O.J. No. 4988, 2013 ONSC 6495, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

The Saskatechewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application for judicial review by an applicant seeking to quash the Law Society’s decision refusing him admission to membership. The court held that as gatekeeper of admissions, the Law Society’s participatory role in judicial review was appropriate and necessary. The Admissions and Education Committee of the Law Society (the “Committee”) and Benchers’ decisions were reviewable on a reasonableness standard on questions of fact and credibility. The standard of correctness applied to questions of law and mixed fact and law. The Committee’s decision, affirmed by the Benchers, denying the applicant’s application for membership on the basis he had not satisfied the Committee of good character, fell within the range of reasonable outcomes having regard to evidence and credibility of witnesses. The Committee did not err in concluding the applicant had not met the onus of proving good character.

25. June 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Standing – Barristers and solicitors – Admission to profession – Judicial review – Disclosure – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness DeMaria v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, [2013] S.J. No. 292, 2013 SKQB 178, Saskatchewan ...

The appellant unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the respondent Ontario Securities Commission, dismissing his application to set aside an order of the Commission approving a settlement he made with the Commission’s staff. The appellant argued before the Commission and on appeal that the order approving settlement should have been set aside because of non-disclosure of material information by the Commission staff prior to the settlement and that a member of the Commission was biased.

26. February 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Settlements – Judicial review – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure Rankin v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2013] O.J. No. 259, 2013 ONSC 112, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 11, 2013, M. Brown R.S.J., P.T. Matlow ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. The Court held that applicant’s grounds for appeal did not raise questions of law alone and thus the Court lacked expertise and jurisdiction to set aside the Board’s findings. Further, the Court held that the applicant’s suggestion that because one of the members of the panel which rendered the decision had previously ruled on a similar case, he appears to have been biased had no chance of success in the Court of Appeal and leave was not granted on that ground.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Subdivision and Development Appeal Board – Judicial review – Bias – Jurisdiction of court McCauley Community League v. Edmonton (City), [2012] A.J. No. 1077, 2012 ABCA 314, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 30, 2012, J.E.L. Côté J.A. The applicant, the McCauley Community League, applied for leave to ...

An interpreter (“Sandhu”) sought judicial review of a Provincial Court decision that he could not act as an interpreter for a party in a small claims action. His petition was dismissed.

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Interpreters in court – Judges – Powers and duties – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sandhu v. British Columbia (Provincial Court, Judge), [2012] B.C.J. No. 1052, 2012 BCSC 1064, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 17, ...

By enrolling in a university, students become subject to the institution’s discretion in resolving academic matters. Courts will only interfere in the core academic functions of universities in cases of “manifest unfairness”. Based on these principles, the Court denied an application on judicial review to set aside a decision of the Senate Appeals Committee of the University of Alberta, which upheld the Residency Program Committee’s requirement that a postgraduate medical student in cardiac surgery enter a six-month remediation period prior to entering her fourth year of residency. Given that the resident’s right to continue her profession and employment was not at stake, she had no right to call or cross-examine witnesses in the academic proceedings.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Medical residents – Evaluation of residents – Physicians and Surgeons – Training requirements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Witnesses Alsaigh v. University of Ottawa, [2012] O.J. No. 2027, 2012 ONSC 2313, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

The Appellant funeral director unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Respondent Board’s License Appeal Tribunal (LAT). The LAT had decided to revoke the Appellant’s funeral director license.

Administrative Law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Funeral Services – License Appeal Tribunal – Funeral directors – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review –  Bias – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Johal v. Ontario (Board of Funeral Services), [2011] O.J. No. 6226, 2011 ONSC 7525, ...

The duty of fairness dictates that a decision maker cannot be involved in every level of an applicant’s proceedings. Such involvement creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. This can apply even if the ultimate issue becomes moot.

28. February 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Evaluation of professors – Judicial review – Bias – Mootness – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Said v. University of Ottawa, [2011] O.J. No. 6043, 2011 ONSC 6179, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, December 30, 2011, J.D. Cunningham ...