The proper way to attack decisions made by administrative bodies is through judicial review. It is not permissible to circumvent this process by dressing up a review of a decision of an administrative tribunal as an application falling under the rules of civil procedure.

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative  tribunals – Police Review Board – Police  –  Governance – Criminal records request – Judicial review  –  Administrative decisions –  Jurisdiction of court – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness J.N. v. Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2012] O.J. No. 2809, 2012 ONCA 428, Ontario Court of ...

The Appellants, Rogers Communications Inc. and other online music service providers, appealed the Copyright Board’s decision, which created a tariff for the online streaming of music. The Appellants argued that offering streaming music was not “communicating to the public” for the purposes of the Copyright Act. The Respondent Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada successfully contested the appeal.

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Copyright Board – Intellectual property – Streaming music – Communication to the public – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, [2012] S.C.J. No. ...

This was a judicial review of a decision of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador not to refer an allegation of collusion between the presiding judge and a member of the Law Society to a disciplinary panel for hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed plaintiff’s allegation that he received unfavourable results in a matrimonial dispute due to collusion stating that Committee had acted reasonably in rejecting the complaint.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Investigations – Barristers and solicitors – Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Aylward v. Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, [2012] N.J. No. 194, 2012 NLTD(G) 85, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme ...

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Adjudicator”) found that a police constable, Michael Shaw, (“Shaw”) discriminated against a Canada Post carrier, Ronald Phipps (“Phipps”) contrary to the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990 c.19 (the “Code”). Shaw’s appeal from the judicial review upholding the Adjudicator’s decision was dismissed.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Adjudication – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Police officers – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Toronto (City) Police Service v. Phipps, [2012] OJ 2601, 2012 ONCA 155, Ontario Court of ...

The Court upheld an Environmental Protection Order issued by the Minister of the Environment as valid under the Environmental Management and Protection Act. The Court held that the appellants had been properly notified of the Minister’s intent to issue the order, and that despite the fact that the appellants no longer occupied the property in question, the Order conformed with the “polluter pay” principle established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Environmental matters – Contaminated sites – Remediation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Envirogun Ltd. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment), [2012] S.J. No. 320, 2011 SKQB 339, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, September 16, 2011, J.E. McMurty J. The Appellants, Envirogun Ltd. and ...

The Court of Appeal set aside an order for treatment forthwith pursuant to s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code for the purposes of making a detained accused fit for trial. The Court held the order to be improper on the basis that the hospitals did not have the necessary facilities available and did not provide consent to the order pursuant to s. 672.62 of the Code. The consent requirement in the Code did not violate s. 7 of the Charter despite the fact that concerns regarding the patient’s liberty and security of the person were triggered when such an order was made. The Court held that even if an accused’s rights are deprived, the consent requirement ensures that the deprivation occurs in a manner that accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Mental health facility – Treatment plans –  Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life, liberty or security of the person – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review –  Compliance with legislation –  Procedural requirements and fairness Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Ontario, ...

The Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) appealed a decision, which allowed the Respondent’s application for a judicial review of compensation entitlement and invalidating a policy. The respondent cross-appealed the judicial review decision on the basis of the invalidation of policy.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of court Jozipovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. No. 801, 2012 BCCA 174, ...

The Applicant sought unsuccessfully a judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Labour Relations Board (the “Board”), which dismissed her complaints under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and applications for the Board’s consent to institute prosecutions for breaches of the Act. The Board had dismissed the complaints and applications on the grounds that they were more appropriately dealt with in hearings currently being held by the Board or in proceedings brought by the applicant in Federal Court, and that adjudicating numerous complaints stemming from essentially the same subject matter served no legitimate labour relations purpose.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Discretion of tribunal – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness Bremsak v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 528, 2012 FCA 91, Federal Court of ...

A person may bring a legal proceeding to challenge the decision of a public or quasi-public body only if the person’s private rights are directly affected by the decision, or the person is exceptionally prejudiced by the decision in a manner different from the general public. In the alternative, a Court has discretion to grant public interest standing, where a party does not have personal standing. A group opposing the decision of the Director, Ministry of the Environment to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for the construction and operation of a Class 4 wind facility in the Township of Mapletown, did not meet the test for public interest standing as it did not establish that a genuine interest in the issues raised. As well, PMI had an appeal right to the Environmental Review Tribunal, which it had exercised.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Environmental matters – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Public interest – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation Preserve Mapleton Inc. v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), [2012] O.J. No. 2037, 2012 ONSC 2115, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April ...

The Court of Appeal dismissed the University of Calgary’s appeal from a judicial review decision quashing disciplinary findings and sanctions against students found by the University to have conducted non-academic misconduct by posting comments about their professor on a Facebook wall. While the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the Chambers judge’s decision to quash the Review Committee’s decision, the Court issued three separate concurring judgments, with the lead judgment revisiting the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1990 decision in McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229, and concluding that McKinney does not always preclude the application of the Charter to universities. In this circumstance, the lead judgment found that the Charter applied to university discipline and the students’ rights had been breached. The other two concurring judgments found it unnecessary to analyze the applicability of the Charter.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Student discipline – Internet – Social media – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness ...