An application for judicial review of an Arbitrator’s decision which held that a police officer was entitled to indemnification under the collective agreement for legal costs incurred in defending a criminal charge despite having pled guilty to a charge of insubordination. The Court held that breach of a rule or directive does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the officer was not attempting to perform his police duty in good faith. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Arbitration Board – Police – Criminal charges – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Applications – Costs – Legal fees Toronto Police Services Board v. Toronto Police Assn., [2007] O.J. No. 1948, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, May 15, 2007, S.N. Lederman, K.E. ...

The Court dismissed a teacher’s application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Teachers awarding costs against the teacher for a disciplinary hearing. The Court held that the decision to award costs against the teacher may have marked a change in the College’s attitude concerning costs, but that the College was entitled to modify its position concerning collection of costs.

22. May 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Regulatory powers of tribunals – Costs – Right to award costs – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Adolphe v. British Columbia College of ...

The appeal by Histed from his convictions by a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Manitoba on two charges of professional misconduct was dismissed. The discipline hearing before the Panel was not a nullity. Any reasonable apprehension of bias that may have existed at the investigative stage was cured by the full and fair hearing on the charges against the Appellant before the Panel. The findings of professional misconduct, the one month suspension and the order of costs, were all decisions that met the applicable standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties – Suspension – Costs – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Investigations – Fairness – Judicial review – Bias – Natural justice – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Histed v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2006] M.J. No. 290, Manitoba Court of ...

The Court dismissed an appeal by a dentist of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “Discipline Committee”) finding him guilty of 15 out of 18 charges of professional misconduct and revoking his licence to practice. The Court dismissed all grounds of appeal but found that the costs of $250,000 imposed against the dentist were unduly high and fixed the costs at $200,000.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Dentists – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Public interest – Judicial review – Natural justice – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Costs Chuang v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario), [2006] O.J. No. ...

The Appellant successfully appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was not capable of making decisions concerning admission to a care facility within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, (the “HCCA”). The test is not whether the Appellant failed to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of the decision to return home but whether or not he was unable to do so. There was no analysis or finding by the Board as to whether the Appellant had the cognitive ability to understand the relevant information as well as to appreciate the consequence of making (or not making) the decision to enter the care facility. Therefore there was no basis upon which the Board could reasonably find that the presumption of the Appellant’s capacity had been displaced and, as such, the Board’s decision ought to be set aside. The Appellant was further awarded costs in the amount of $24,914. Although the proceedings were not adversarial in the usual sense and the evaluators were acting in good faith and in what they believed were the Appellant’s best interests, the hospital and health practitioners had a great deal of power in the assessment process and the appeal was the Appellant’s only remedy to challenge the incapacity finding. Therefore, there was no reason the Appellant should not have his costs.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Capacity – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Costs Saunders v. Bridgeport Hospital, [2005] O.J. No. 5531, Ontario Court of Justice, December 14, 2005, N.J. Spies J. ...

The Court of Appeal held that a board of inquiry appointed under the Human Rights Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214 (the “Act”) was not entitled to make an award of legal costs as part of its compensation award

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Costs – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Right to award costs – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2005] N.S.J. No. 156, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, April 22, 2005, ...

A panel of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) found that the Respondent Donnini had engaged in unlawful insider trading contrary to section 76(1) of the Ontario Securities Act. The Commission suspended Donnini’s registration as a securities trader for 15 years and ordered him to pay investigation and hearing costs of $186,000. Donnini appealed all aspects of the Commissioner’s order. A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from liability, but allowed the appeal in respect of the sanctions imposed on Donnini and the award of costs. The Divisional Court reduced Donnini’s suspension from 15 to 4 years and directed the Commission to reconsider its costs award by following specific procedural steps. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commission’s findings on liability and sanction but remitted the matter of costs for the Commission’s reconsideration.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Costs – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Donnini v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 240, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, M. Rosenberg, M.J. Moldaver and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A. In February ...

The misconduct convictions imposed by the Respondent were upheld on appeal as the Court held that the Panel was not unreasonable in the exercise of its statutory duty. However, the costs award ordered against the Appellant exceeded the bounds of reasonableness and was set aside.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Costs Filipchuk v. College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Manitoba, [2004] M.J. No. 367, Manitoba Court of Appeal, September 29, 2004, Twaddle, Kroft and Monnin JJ.A. A statutory ...

Costello appealed the decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) which found that he had acted as an “advisor” without being registered to do so under section 25(1)(c) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990 C. s.5 (the “Act”). The court employed a standard of review of reasonableness and found that the Commission’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Personal interests – Public interest – Stock brokers and advisors – Disciplinary proceedings – Advisor – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Costs Costello v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2004] O.J. No. 2972, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July ...

A chiropractor, convicted of six counts of professional misconduct and sentenced to nine months suspension and costs of over $80,000, unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Suspensions – Costs – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ressel v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3032, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 25, 2003, O’Driscoll, Then and Lang ...