The court quashed a decision of Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner for the City of Edmonton to destroy a data base containing personal information collected by pawnshops. The court found that the Commissioner had erred in his interpretation of municipal law as it related to privacy law.

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Privacy commissioner – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Police – Municipal employees – Electronic records – Collection – review – Standard of review – Correctness Business Watch International Inc. v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2009] A.J. No. 24, ...

A taxi operator appealed the decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal which had found that he had discriminated against a disabled man by refusing to provide taxi service to him. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, and award costs against the Appellant. The court also rejected the Appellant’s allegation of bias on the part of the Tribunal member.

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Right to award costs – Judicial review – Bias – Test – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Sahota v. Scott, [2008] S.J. No. 836, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

An application for judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator appointed by the general manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, was dismissed. The adjudicator’s decision that the petitioner had violated its Liquor Primary License was based on a correct interpretation of the regulations and was reasonable.

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Permits and licences – Primary licences -Take away service – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Burden of proof – Procedural requirements and fairness Liquor Stores Limited Partnership v. ...

A veterinarian appealed a decision of the Respondent Association, which had found him guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately trapping, handling, and marketing white-tailed deer. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Association’s decision, on the basis that it had admitted into evidence a videotaped statement without a correct consideration of the applicable principles, contrary to specific provisions in the Wildlife Act and in breach of the discipline committee’s duty of fairness.

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Hearsay evidence – admissibility – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Witnesses – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Standard of review – Correctness ...

The standard of review of a decision of the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta, finding misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty, on the part of a person licensed to sell life insurance in Alberta, is reasonableness

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Insurance Councils Appeal Board – Jurisdiction – Insurance brokers – Permits and licences – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Interpretation of legislation – Privative clauses Roy v. Alberta (Insurance Councils Appeal ...

The Court dismissed the appeal by the Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal finding that the complainant’s disciplinary suspension from school for profanity did not constitute discriminatory conduct. Although the complainant suffered from Williams Syndrome and was mentally retarded, there was no evidence to show that profanity was a characteristic common to persons with Williams Syndrome and suspensions were regularly used by the school as a form of discipline and 8 to 10 students would be suspended during any school year. As long as suspensions were used in a non-discriminatory manner, they were permissible and no prima facie case of discrimination had been made out.

28. October 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Schools – Suspension of students – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Evidence Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Prince Albert Roman Catholic School Division No.6, [2008] S.J. No. 434, 2008 SKQB 227, ...

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the Appellant Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation from a decision of the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission. The Commission allowed the Respondent injured motorist to continue receiving income replacement benefits. The Commission allowed her appeal on several alternate grounds. A case manager for the Appellant terminated her income replacement benefits and the Respondent had appealed to the Commission. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the Appellant had not challenged all of the alternate grounds upon which the Commission allowed the Respondent’s appeal.

28. October 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Interpretation of legislation – Fresh evidence – Mootness – Public interest – Standard of review – Correctness Shier v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [2008] M. J. No. 305, Manitoba Court of Appeal, September 8, ...

The Court allowed a preliminary application for consideration of a procedural matter regarding a decision of the Chair of the Discipline Committee of the Respondent Chiropractor Board. The application alleged reasonable apprehension of bias in the proceedings of the Discipline Committee. The application was allowed because the Chair had knowledge of credibility issues outside the context of the complaint that the Committee was adjudicating. A high standard of procedural fairness applied and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in these circumstances.

28. October 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Chiropractors – Professional governance and discipline – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Natural justice – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Joyce v. Newfoundland and Labrador Chiropractic Board, [2008] N.J. No. 241, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court ...

A lawyer (“Igbinosun”) was successful in his appeal of a decision of the Hearing Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada (the “LSUC”) where the Court found that the Hearing Panel failed to act judiciously in refusing Igbinosun’s request for an adjournment of the Hearing.

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Public interest – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Adjournment – Judicial review – Procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – ...

The Appellant hospital appealed from a decision concluding that the Hospital Privileges Appeal Board had jurisdiction to hear the Respondent doctor’s appeal from a refusal by the hospital’s Operating Room Committee to increase his operating room time. The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reviewing judge had failed to consider the preliminary question of whether the doctor had, as required, raised an issue of law in order to appeal from the Board’s decision, and also in applying the correctness standard to the Board’s decision. The appropriate standard of review is reasonableness, and the failure of the majority to provide reasons meant it was impossible to determine if the decision was reasonable.

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Appeals – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Failure to provide reasons Macdonald v. Mineral Springs Hospital, [2008] A.J. No., 891, Alberta ...