The Law Society of Saskatchewan’s application for an Order authorizing an Inspector of the Law Society to enter the office of M Law Firm to obtain privileged file materials relating to a client (“MH”) was dismissed where the Court found that the circumstances of the case did not meet the test of “absolute necessity”

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Solicitor-client privilege – Law Societies – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Disclosure – Absolute Necessity Law Society of Saskatchewan v. E.M., [2006] S.J. No. 608, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, August 10, 2006, Hunter J. The Law Society received a complaint from a person who was adverse ...

The University of Saskatchewan (the “University”) applied for judicial review of a decision of the Visitor of the University directing that the Respondent, Dr. Pearlman, be permitted to continue his residency at the College. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the Visitor for further consideration. The Court held that the standard of review in this case was patent unreasonableness. Although the Court held that the Visitor had broad remedial powers to investigate the matter, the Court overturned its decision, as it did not comply with the Labour Standards Act.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Universities – Evaluation of residents – Labour law – Working conditions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Pearlman v. University of Saskatchewan, [2006] S.J. No. 618, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 27, 2006, Cameron, Lane and ...

The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Marsden, applied for judicial review of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) decision. The Board held that Dr. Taylor, the Respondent, was allowed to administer anti-hypertension medication generally to the Applicants’ incapacitated mother. The Court held that the proper standard of review of the Board’s decision was simple reasonableness. It allowed the Applicants’ appeal in part.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Consent to treatment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Parties – Death of a party – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Marsden v. Taylor, [2006] O.J. ...

The Applicant, Mo’s Sport’s Parlour, applied for a judicial review of the Board (the “Board”) of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision cancelling its licence which permitted it to operate a bar, serve liquor and have specified gaming machines in the bar. Applying the standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the Commission did not breach the rules of natural justice by refusing to allow the Applicant to ask certain questions on cross-examination of a witness. It also concluded that there was a thread of reason through the Commission’s written reasons supporting this conclusion. The Court dismissed the Application for judicial review.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence – Witnesses – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mo’s Sports Parlour (2000) Ltd. v. ...

The Applicant, Dr. Cimolai applied for an order setting aside an investigative report. Dr. Cimolai also sought an order to prohibit the Respondent Hospital from proceeding with a complaint against him, and for the Applicant’s reinstatement to his former position with the Hospital. The Court concluded that it would be premature to conduct a judicial review and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investigations – Judicial review application – Premature – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Witnesses – Compliance with legislation Cimolai v. Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2199, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 3, 2006, Cullen ...

The Petitioner sought an order quashing a decision of the Respondent, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”), dismissing her human rights complaint against the Respondent, the University of Victoria (the “University”). The Court held that the appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a basis for quashing the BCHRT decision, and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Universities – Students – Duty to accommodate – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Limitations – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Callaghan v. University of Victoria, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2668, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 11, ...

A former covert operative in Canada for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (“Miller”) was unsuccessful on her application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the “Minister”), which concurred in the recommendation of the Canada Border Services Agency that Miller should not be granted relief from her inadmissibility pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provision holding that a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for engaging in an act of espionage or an act or subversion against a democratic government, institution or process, as they are understood in Canada

24. October 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Border Service Agency – Minister of Public Safety – Foreign nationals – Espionage – Deportation orders – Immigration – Ministerial decisions – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Miller v. Canada (Solicitor ...

The Court considered a challenge to the Labour and Employment Board’s decision that the Superintendent of Pensions possessed an implied power to decide an employment status issue, an implied power that was necessarily incidental to the express power to classify employees of a particular employer. The Court held that this decision had a rational basis and was reasonable.

22. August 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Classification – Labour law – Pensions – Eligibility – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and Employment Boards – Employee classification – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Saint John (City) Pension Board v. New Brunswick ...

The Court quashed the Respondent’s decision to deny benefits to the developmentally and intellectually disabled Petitioner. By structuring its decision on an IQ criteria, the Respondent had acted outside of its jurisdiction and had fettered its own discretion.

22. August 2006 0
Administrative law – Administrative decisions – Community Living authority – Legislation – Validity – Ultra vires – Unlawful delegation of power – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation N.F. (Guardian Ad Litem of) v. Community Living B.C., [2006] B.C.J. No. 1331, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 12, 2006, Chamberlist J. The Petitioner was 19 years of ...

A complainant is not entitled to judicial review of the College of Physician and Surgeons’ decision to take no further action regarding her complaint. The only parties to the investigation were the physicians subject to the complaint and the College itself. A complainant is not made a party to either the investigation or the disciplinary process itself. The College exercised a power akin to prosecutorial discretion that is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. There was no impropriety on the part of the College or the expert retained in investigating the complaints. Judicial review was not available in the circumstances.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Investigations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Availability – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness M.H. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2006] A.J. No. 668, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, May 26, ...