A physician holding a “Border Area License” allowing him to work in both the United States and Canada was suspended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick for allegedly prescribing to patients that were not attended by him. Rather than replying directly to the College, the physician sought a judicial review of the College’s decision to suspend. In reviewing the College decision, the court concluded that in urgent circumstances the College has the jurisdiction to effect an immediate suspension of a physician’s license. The court held that the College should be given a great deal of deference in determining which circumstances constitute “an urgent matter requiring immediate action” and that their decision to suspend was reasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Jurisdiction – Fairness – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Loiselle v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2003] N.B.J. No. 111, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 12, 2003, Garnett J. Loiselle ...

The Respondent was an employee of the Federal Government who suffered severe and long-standing respiratory problems. After a number of long term absences, the Respondent was dismissed on grounds that she was incapable of performing the duties of her office. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission investigated the matter and dismissed the Respondent’s complaint on the grounds that discrimination had not been shown. The Respondent obtained a copy of the Commission’s investigation report and appealed the Commission’s decision to the Federal Court (Trial Division). The applications judge set aside the Commission’s decision to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the investigator had failed to include a great deal of information that he had obtained from the Ministry and consequently the Respondent did not have an opportunity to respond to the information. The Ministry appealed the Trial Division’s decision, arguing that the Commission’s decision-making process did not violate the Respondent’s right to procedural fairness. In allowing the appeal, the court noted that there was no basis for the notion that an investigator has a duty to disclose all information uncovered in the course of investigation to a complainant. Upon reviewing the investigation report, the court concluded that it was reasonable and adequate and that the Commission was entitled to some deference in their decision to dismiss a complaint.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigative bodies – Duty to disclose evidence – Fairness – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Patent unreasonableness Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), [2003] F.C.J. No. 439, Federal ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...

A professional dog handler, Mr. Lee, was abusive towards volunteer staff. The Confirmation Show Committee recommended that he be found guilty of infractions of show rules and that he no longer be allowed to participate in any Alberta Kennel Club (“AKC”) shows. The complaint was brought before the Discipline Committee of the Canadian Kennel Committee (“CKC”). During the hearing, the Committee members solicited more information about Mr. Lee from a representative of the complainant. The complainant’s representative gave a great deal of irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and the Discipline Committee imposed a two-year period of debarment. Mr. Lee’s appeal to the Appeal Committee of the CKC was dismissed. Mr. Lee then brought an appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, who concluded that the decisions of consensual tribunals are reviewable by a court of law and that Mr. Lee’s procedural rights were breached when the Discipline Committee solicited irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence prior to making its decision.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Procedural requirements – Jurisdiction – Evidence Lee v. Canadian Kennel Club Appeal Committee, [2003] A.J. No. 64, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, January 17, 2003, Lee J. The complaint arose out of dispute between Mr. Lee, a professional dog handler, and ...

A complainant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Baltruweit”) was successful in his application to have the court overturn the decision of the Commission to dismiss his complaint at the investigative stage. The court held that the failure of the Commission to provide Baltruweit with the substance of the evidence of a legal opinion relating to the complaint was a breach of its duty of procedural fairness and the matter was referred back to the Commission for a re-determination.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Evidence – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Hearings – Disclosure – Solicitor-client privilege Baltruweit v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1615, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, November 19, 2002, Gibson J. Baltruweit was employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence ...

A minister of the United Church (“Graham”) was unsuccessful in her application seeking judicial review of a decision by the Saskatchewan Conference of the Church (the “Conference”) to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing into Graham’s actions as a minister. The court held that the Conference was entitled to proceed despite the fact that decisions from an earlier “care and oversight” review by the Presbytery had been quashed, as the Conference had concurrent jurisdiction with Presbytery to conduct such a review and defects in the prior procedure could be cured by initiating a fresh process.

28. January 2003 0
Religious organizations – Governance – Church ministers – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Hearings – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Jurisdiction Graham v. United Church of Canada, [2002] S.J. No. 596, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, November 15, 2002, Foley J. Graham was a minister of the United Church of Canada. ...

Detective Robertson, an Edmonton police officer, was the subject of several citations related to his activities while on the police force. During proceedings, Detective Robertson applied to the court for a stay on the grounds that natural justice required that he be provided with funded counsel due to the complexity of the citations. The application to the court failed.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Stay of proceedings – Right to legal representation – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Service, [2002] A.J. No. 1366, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, November 6, 2002, Clackson J. Fifteen citations were launched against Detective Robertson (the “Applicant”) by the Edmonton ...

An appeal by a registered nurse from a decision of the Appeal Committee of the Registered Nurses Association of Nova Scotia to dismiss his appeal from a decision of the Professional Conduct Committee which found that he was guilty of professional misconduct and revoked his licence. The appeal was based on several grounds including alleged procedural and fairness violations. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Investigative bodies – Fairness – Role of legal counsel – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness Fox v. Registered Nurses’ Assn. of Nova Scotia, [2002] N.S.J. No. 486, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, November 13, 2002, Roscoe, Chipman and Bateman JJ.A. Mr. Fox was employed ...

Ms. Cromie was issued a 24-hour driving prohibition after providing a breath sample to a police officer. On the same day, Ms. Cromie was served with a notice of driving prohibition pursuant to section 94.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318. The adjudicator confirmed the driving prohibition against Ms. Cromie and Ms. Cromie appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that she had a right to cross-examine the arresting officer in front of the adjudicator. Ms. Cromie’s application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Right to cross-examine arresting officer Cromie v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2552, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 4, 2002, Melnick J. On April 6, 2002, Ms. Cromie was pulled ...

The Applicant attended at the Joyceville Penitentiary to visit her husband. A drug sniffing dog identified her as having drugs on her person and the guards would not allow the visit. Subsequently, a “risk assessment” was completed without notice to the Applicant and her visiting privileges were suspended. Her application for review was dismissed on the grounds that the issue was moot.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Visiting rights – Judicial review applications – Compliance with legislation – Mootness – Breach of procedural fairness McGahey v. Joyceville Penitentiary, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1281, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, September 19, 2002, Gibson J. On September 30, 2000, the Applicant and her daughter went to the Joyceville Institution ...