The Appellant (Mr. Ayangma) unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of PEI. The Supreme Court had refused Mr. Ayangma’s application for judicial review relating to a decision of the PEI Human Rights Commission. The PEI Human Rights Commission had dismissed Mr. Ayangma’s complaint relating to his job application for the Respondent (Canada Health Infoway Inc.).

26. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Stare decisis Ayangma v Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2014] P.E.I.J. No. 33, 2014 PECA 13, Prince ...

A forestry company (“Irving”) was partly successful on appeal from a finding of the respondent, North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board (the “Board”), which had held that the various forest product marketing boards had the authority to regulate stumpage agreements

19. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Marketing Boards – Natural resources – Forestry – Stumpage fees – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Bias – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter J.D. Irving Ltd. v. North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board, [2014] N.B.J. No. 162, 2014 NBCA 42, New Brunswick Court of ...

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant physician from four decisions of the Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) when found that she failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession; had engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct; and demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment in her treatment of a number of patients. The Court upheld the Committee’s penalty of a two year suspension and restrictive terms thereafter preventing the appellant from practising as a cosmetic surgeon, and performing any surgery except as a surgical assistant in a hospital under supervision. The Court also upheld the Committee’s finding that the appellant contravened the advertising regulation under the Medicine Act, 1991 S.O. 1991 c.30, finding that the CPSO’s ban on the use of testimonials and superlatives was constitutional.

24. December 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and surgeons – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Competence – Advertising – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Yazdanfar v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2013] O.J. No. ...

The Applicant worker, Mr. Griffin, sought judicial review of the Respondents’ decisions about his entitlement to survivor benefits pursuant to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

26. November 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Survivor benefits – Entitlement – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Griffin v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division), [2013] N.J. No. 337, 2013 NLTD(G) ...

The Saskatechewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application for judicial review by an applicant seeking to quash the Law Society’s decision refusing him admission to membership. The court held that as gatekeeper of admissions, the Law Society’s participatory role in judicial review was appropriate and necessary. The Admissions and Education Committee of the Law Society (the “Committee”) and Benchers’ decisions were reviewable on a reasonableness standard on questions of fact and credibility. The standard of correctness applied to questions of law and mixed fact and law. The Committee’s decision, affirmed by the Benchers, denying the applicant’s application for membership on the basis he had not satisfied the Committee of good character, fell within the range of reasonable outcomes having regard to evidence and credibility of witnesses. The Committee did not err in concluding the applicant had not met the onus of proving good character.

25. June 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Standing – Barristers and solicitors – Admission to profession – Judicial review – Disclosure – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness DeMaria v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, [2013] S.J. No. 292, 2013 SKQB 178, Saskatchewan ...

The appellants successfully appealed an arbitrator’s decision on the basis that the arbitrator erred by failing to give effect to the ordinary and plain meaning of a statutory provision regarding employment benefits

28. May 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Arbitration Board – Labour law – Collective agreements – Benefits – Judicial review – Appeals – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers’ Assn., [2013] B.C.J. No. 767, ...

The Applicant home builder sought a review of an arbitrator’s decision relating to a warranty dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent condominium corporation. The arbitrator decided he had jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration and the Applicant’s application to review that decision was dismissed.

23. April 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of arbitrator – Standard of review – Correctness Urban E. Homes Ltd. v. Condomium Corp. No. 0313563, [2013] A.J. No. 187, 2013 ABQB 109, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 15, 2013, R.A. Jerke J. The Applicant, Urban E. Homes Ltd., constructed ...

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the Coquitlam School District from a decision of a chambers judge on application for judicial review. The Appeal Court found that the chambers judge erred in applying a correctness standard to a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal where the tribunal considered the complainant’s mitigation of damages in its award of compensation for wage loss. The Tribunal was under no obligation to apply the common law test for mitigation in determining what amount of compensation to award. The issue of assessing compensation was a discretionary one which attracted a standard of review of patent unreasonableness as prescribed by s.59 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, SBC 2004, c.45.

23. April 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Discretion of tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Remedies – Damages – Duty to mitigate – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness J.J. v. Coquitlam School District No. 43, [2013] B.C.J. No. 542, 2013 ...

The appellant Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority sucessfully appealed a lower court decision affirming a tribunal’s decision that the Health Authority acted unreasonably in the treatment of the respondent physician’s disruptive behaviour

26. February 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Physicians and surgeons – Disruptive behaviour – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority v. Dewar, [2013] S.J. No. 9, 2013 SKCA 3, Saskatchewan Court of ...

The individual Appellants, Stuart and Karen Shaw, unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Respondent Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”). The Commission had approved a new electrical transmission infrastructure project in the county of the Appellants.

22. January 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Utilities Commission – Approval process – Public interest – Powers under legislation – Natural resources – Electricity – Transmission – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Shaw v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), [2012] A.J. No. 1259, 2012 ...