The appeal of the College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (the “College”) from the decision of the Health Disciplines Board (the “Board”) reversing a decision of the College Conduct and Competency Committee (the “Committee”) regarding the conduct of a member (“Zieniewicz”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the Committee failed to properly consider all evidence at the hearing of Zieniewicz and that the Board properly applied the standard of review in reversing the Committee’s decision.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Hearing Aid Practitioners – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Supervision of trainee – Delegated supervision – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (Council of) v. Zieniewicz, [2003] A.J. ...

The Respondent Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (the “Ministry”) terminated the funding and directed another agency to take over the programs of the Applicant, St. Catharines Association for Community Living (“SCACL”), a non-profit charitable organization providing services to disabled persons. SCACL’s application for judicial review of this decision was allowed, and the Ministry’s decision to terminate the funding, seize the property, and authorize a third party to operate the agency was quashed as illegal. The standard of review was that the decision was patently unreasonable. Although the Minister was entitled to terminate a contractual relationship where there has been a fundamental breach, there was no evidence of an inability by SCACL to protect its clients, there was no evidence of any weighing of considerations pertinent to the objects of the administration. The decision was therefore patently unreasonable.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Charitable organizations – Governance and funding – Powers of government – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Byl (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3436, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ...

The Appellant Imperial Oil was issued a characterization order by the Respondent Minister of the Environment to undertake a site study, including decontamination measures. Imperial Oil declined to do the study, arguing breach of the rules of procedural fairness since the Minister was in a conflict of interest as he himself was being sued for damages by the present owners of the land. The appeal was dismissed. There was no conflict of interest which warranted judicial intervention and the Minister acted within the framework provided by the applicable law and in accordance with the law.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Environmental issues – Contaminated sites – Remediation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Impartiality – Conflict of interest – Personal interests – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Fairness Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment), [2003] S.C.J. No. 59, Supreme Court of Canada, October 30, 2003, McLachlin C.J. ...

The Appellant medical doctor (“Markman”) was charged with four allegations of professional misconduct, along with an allegation of incompetence

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial intervention – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Sentencing – Public interest – Suspensions Markman v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3855, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 1, 2003, McRae, Gravely and Jennings JJ. ...

A physician (“Lee”) appealed his conviction by a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on a charge of sexually abusing a patient. The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing on the basis that the Panel denied Lee natural justice and procedural fairness in the hearing by refusing to engage in an O’Connor-type inquiry into the evidence of the complainant’s psychologist, whose clinical records were illegible.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Fairness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Evidence – O’Connor motion – Hearing de novo – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Natural justice – Hearings – Disclosure Lee v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3382, Ontario ...

The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the finding of insider trading against the head institutional trader and part owner of Yorkton Securities Inc. (“Donnini”) made by the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”). The court reduced the trading suspension imposed by the OSC from 15 years to 4 years and directed that the matter of costs, which had been assessed by the OSC at $186,052.30, be referred back to the OSC to conduct an inquiry into the extent of the bill in order to substantiate the amount.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Penalties – Judicial review – Costs Donnini v. Ontario Securities Commission, [2003] O.J. No. 3541, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, September 15, 2003, Lane, Somers and Greer JJ. On June 11, 2002, two of the members ...

A disposition by the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) allowing an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity and who remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, to be transferred to his country of origin for care and supervision was found unreasonable by the Court of Appeal. In finding that the disposition was unreasonable, the Court held that the existence of a deportation order was irrelevant to the Board’s consideration whether to return a dangerous patient to his native land and should not have been considered.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Deportation orders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction R. v. Miller, [2003] O.J. No. 3455, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 10, 2003, Charron, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A. Miller was found not guilty ...

A former employee of British Columbia Hydro (“Lee”), successfully applied for a judicial review of the decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) which declined to refer his complaint for a hearing before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Investigative bodies – Evidenciary issues Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2200, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 22, 2003, Ross J. Lee had been employed as an engineer with BC ...

The Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre (“Ingamo”) appealed from a decision of the Fair Practices Officer in which Bergeron’s complaint of discrimination was allowed and damages for the lost wages and humiliation were awarded. The court allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Fair Practices Officer.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Fair Practices Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre v. Bergeron, [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 51, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, July 30, 2003, Vertes J. Bergeron, ...

The Petitioners, female communications operators at the Vancouver Police Department, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision dismissing their claims that they were paid less than male communications operators doing the same work at the Vancouver Fire Department contrary to sections 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Tribunal concluded that for the purposes of wage discrimination under section 12 of the Code, the City, who employed the Fire Dispatchers, was not the Petitioner’s employer and therefore no wage-discrimination between employees of different sexes could have occurred.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Reid v. Vancouver (City), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2043, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 3, 2003, Garson J. Section 12 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, ...