The Appellant did not demonstrate that the Respondent Board’s decisions regarding applicable management fees were unreasonable and therefore the appeals were dismissed

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Management fees – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Reasonableness simpliciter Atco Electric Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2004] A.J. No. 906, Alberta Court of Appeal, August 16, 2004, Côté, Wittmann and Costigan JJ.A. The ...

The court dismissed an appeal overturning a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal which had held that section 70(6) of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, does not require a distribution of the actuarial surplus when there is a partial wind-up of an Ontario defined benefit pension plan

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Financial Services Commission – Pension plans – winding-up – surplus – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Statutory interpretation – Legislation Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), [2004] S.C.J. No. 51, Supreme Court of Canada, July 29, 2004, McLachlin ...

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 ...

The holder of expropriated placer mining interests (“Eckervogt”) appealed the decision of the Expropriation Compensation Board (the “Board”) on the grounds of lack of independence or a reasonable apprehension of bias where one of the Board members (“Greenwood”) accepted a position as prosecutor with the Ministry of the Attorney General while the expropriation decision was under consideration. The court dismissed the appeal holding that the suggestion that Greenwood’s duties of confidentiality and fidelity to the Crown as prosecutor would place him in conflict with his duties as adjudicator was remote and speculative and should not lead to disqualification.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Expropriation Compensation Board – Conflict of interest – Independence vs. impartiality – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test Eckervogt v. British Columbia (Minister of Employment and Investment), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1492, British Columbia Court of Appeal, July 20, 2004, Finch C.J.B.C., Ryan, Donald, Saunders and ...

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the Court of Queen’s Bench did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s application for a judicial review of a decision of the New Brunswick Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, since the appellant was a “public utility” and its avenue of appeal was directly to the Court of Appeal. The limitation period had expired and the Board’s decision was beyond judicial review.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities – Judicial review application – Jurisdiction of court – Public utility – definition – Compliance with legislation – Limitations Cooperators General Insurance Co. v. New Brunswick (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities), [2004] N.B.J. No. 289, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, July 22, 2004, ...

In weighing the merits of the Appellants’ rezoning requests, the Defendant municipality was discharging a duty delegated to it by the legislature. The Defendant was bound to exercise the powers conferred upon it fairly, in good faith and with a view to the public interest. The Defendant did not fulfil its duty of procedural fairness in refusing two rezoning applications brought by the Appellants as it gave no reasons for its denial. In refusing to justify its decision, the Defendant breached its duty of procedural fairness.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Appeals – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Statutory provisions – Public interest – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Charter of Rights – Discrimination Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] S.C.J. No. 45, Supreme ...

On judicial review, the court held that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Human Rights Tribunal member’s decision to order the matter to proceed to an inquiry was unreasonable

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon Regional Health Authority v. Kahsai, [2004] S.J. No. 417, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, May 27, 2004, Foley J. The Saskatoon Regional ...

The Plaintiff “held an office” with the Defendant Municipality and therefore a duty of fairness applied to the administrative decision to terminate his employment. The Plaintiff was entitled to a hearing which he did not receive; therefore, the Defendant municipality did not comply with its duty of procedural fairness in terminating his employment.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Wrongful dismissal – Hold an office – definition – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness Reglin v. Creston (Town), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1218, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 10, 2004, Melnick J. The Plaintiff ...

On an application for judicial review of a decision of a Human Rights Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), the court found that the Commissioner erred in law in finding gender discrimination against the complainant with respect to her rate of pay as a summer police constable. However, the court found that the Commissioner’s decision that the complainant was discriminated against in employment on the basis of gender was supported by the evidence and there was therefore no reviewable error with respect to that issue.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Burden of proof – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter DeWare v. Kensington (Town), [2004] P.E.I.J. No. 40, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 28, 2004, Matheson J. The ...

An adjudicator’s decision which confirmed a driving prohibition under the Motor Vehicle Act was set aside on the basis that the adjudicator erred in relying on a Report to Crown Counsel which did not form part of a sworn or affirmed report from a peace officer, as required by the Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness Neill v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1197, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 10, 2004, Cullen J. The Petitioner sought a review of an ...