The Court dismissed an appeal by a dentist of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “Discipline Committee”) finding him guilty of 15 out of 18 charges of professional misconduct and revoking his licence to practice. The Court dismissed all grounds of appeal but found that the costs of $250,000 imposed against the dentist were unduly high and fixed the costs at $200,000.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Dentists – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Public interest – Judicial review – Natural justice – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Costs Chuang v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario), [2006] O.J. No. ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a residents’ association of a decision by an assessment and planning appeal board which found that the association had waived its right to claim that members on the preservation review board were biased. Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias existed was a question of law and the board should not be afforded due deference. The standard of review was thus correctness. The bias concerns raised by the residents’ association were effective and timely, and it did not matter that there was no formal request that certain board members recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Assessment Appeal Board – Judicial review – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Rothesay Residents Assn. Inc. v. Rothesay Heritage Preservation & Review Board, [2006] N.B.J. No. 227, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, June 1, 2006, Daigle, ...

The Court allowed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Appeal Board which had set aside the Appellant’s development permit. The Court found that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of one of the members of the Board, and the matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Subdivision and Development Appeal Board – Hearings – Judicial review – Bias – Natural justice Mountain Creeks Ranch Inc. v. Yellowhead (County) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, [2006] A.J. No. 398, Alberta Court of Appeal, April 12, 2006, Conrad, Berger and Ritter JJ.A. The ...

The Court dismissed a former paramedic’s application for judicial review of a decision by a hospital’s Medical Director to decertify her as both a Primary Care Paramedic and Advanced Care Paramedic. The Court found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision, but that the Applicant had not been denied natural justice, the Medical Director’s decision was reasonable, and he had not exhibited bias.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Paramedics – Competence – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical director – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Public body – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Scheerer v. Waldbillig, [2006] O.J. No. 744, Ontario Superior ...

The Court prohibited the appointment by both the Applicant Physician and Respondent Authority of certain individuals to an Appeal Committee, on the basis that those appointments would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Penalties and Suspensions – Medical Advisory Committee – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Natural justice – Bias Fong v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, [2006] M.J. No. 25, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, January 10, 2006, Greenberg J. The Applicant is ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from the decision of the judge on judicial review who had upheld a decision of the Occupational Health and Safety Council finding that the Appellant had been dismissed from his employment for insubordination and not for raising a safety concern

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Navrot v. Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety Council), [2005] A.J. No. 1569, Alberta Court of Appeal, November 16, 2005, Hunt, Berger and Ritter, ...

The application of the Respondent City of Toronto (the “City”) that a member of the panel of the Divisional Court recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed. The moving parties, by their own conduct, had waived their right to raise the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias and, in addition, the moving parties failed to establish that there was in fact a reasonable apprehension of bias on behalf of the subject judge.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Bias – Judiciary – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test SOS-Save Our St. Clair Inc. v. Toronto (City), [2005] O.J. No. 4729, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 3, 2005, P.T. Matlow, S.E. Greer and E.M. Macdonald JJ. On October 11, 2005, a panel of the Divisional Court released a ...

An application for judicial review with respect to issues relating to an ongoing disciplinary hearing under the Alberta Police Act was dismissed on the basis of prematurity

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Pending hearings – Discretion of court to interfere – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Remedies – Availability Smyth v. Edmonton (City) Police Service, [2005] A.J. No. 1216, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, September 6, 2005, Lefsrud J. The ...

A dentist (“Dr. Hover”) was unsuccessful in his appeal from a decision of the Alberta Dental Association upholding a finding of professional misconduct, including a finding that he had failed to produce his records to them without justification

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Failure to produce records – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence –  Of administrative tribunals – Dental Association Hover v. Alberta Dental Association, [2005] A.J. No. 1254, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 3, 2005, Conrad, Picard and ...

A dentist (“Dr. Sigesmund”) with a practice restricted to the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders was partially successful in his appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) where he was originally found guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Judicial review – Witnesses – Bias – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sigesmund v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 3267, Ontario Superior Court of ...