The Minister of Health Planning was successful in overturning a portion of the remedy aspect of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal directing the Minister to amend the birth registration form to provide an option of identifying as a parent, a non-biological parent who is the co-parent of a mother or a father. The court found that the Human Rights Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to Order that the Minister cease discriminating against same gender parents but exceeded its jurisdiction in directing that the Minister take specific steps with respect to altering the birth registration form.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Declaratory relief – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Sexual orientation – Gender – Parent – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia (Minister of Health Planning) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2003] B.C.J. No. 17552, British ...

Gill was successful in having the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the B.C. Securities Commission that the newly formed CDNX stock exchange had jurisdiction to discipline Gill for alleged breaches of the rules of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a predecessor to the CDNX

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Compliance with rules and by-laws – Jurisdiction – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Restructuring of stock exchanges – Survival of contracts – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Gill v. Canadian Venture Exchange Inc., [2003] B.C.J. No. 1767, British Columbia Court ...

A psychiatric nurse (“Bennet”) was successful in his appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Association of Manitoba (the “Association”). The court found that the Committee’s decision finding Bennet guilty of professional misconduct for having sexual intercourse with a former client was not reasonable as the Committee did not have sufficient evidence before it on the threshold issue of boundaries and/or therapeutic relationships.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Psychiatric Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Sexual relations with former patient – Boundaries and therapeutic relationships – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Evidence Bennet v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Assn. of Manitoba, [2003] M.J. No. 163, Manitoba Court of Appeal, May 15, 2003, Monnin, Hamilton ...

Bell brought a motion before a panel of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which had been convened to hear complaints filed against Bell by female employees. Bell alleged that the Tribunal’s independence and impartiality were compromised by two powers: first, the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to issue guidelines that are binding on the Tribunal concerning “a class of cases”, and second, the power of the Tribunal Chairperson to extend Tribunal members’ terms in ongoing inquiries.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights Tribunal – Impartiality – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Reasonable apprehension of bias Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Assn., [2003] S.C.J. No. 36, Supreme Court of Canada, June 26, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel ...

An aviation company operating tourist flights (“Delco”) was charged with (i) landing or taking off an aircraft in a built-up area of a city or town without authorization, and (ii) the use of Class F Special Use Restricted Airspace. The Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal held that the two sets of charges were founded upon the same acts and that, due to the legal nexus between the counts, Delco had been placed in a position of double jeopardy. The Appeal Panel stayed two of the charges. The Ministry appealed to the Federal Court who held that a legal double jeopardy only exists if there are no additional and distinguishing elements between two charges. Although arising from the same transaction, the Act created separate and distinct offences as a “built up area” is not necessarily “Class F Airspace” and vice versa. The decision of the Appeal Panel was quashed and the decision of the Tribunal member was reinstated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civil Aviation Tribunal – Penalties – Double jeopardy – Kienapple rule – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Minister of Transport) v. Delco Aviation Ltd., [2002] F.C.J. No. 938, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 12, 2003, Blanchard ...

Devlin successfully appealed the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which upheld a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspending Devlin’s driver’s licence pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 for medical reasons.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Medical condition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical Advisory Committee – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Devlin v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2003] O.J. No. 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 26, 2003, Pitt J. Devlin had experienced a single ...

Owen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the offence of second degree murder committed in 1978 while he was in a psychotic state induced by drug abuse. He was then detained in various mental health institutions and was gradually released into the community. However, he began to commit violent offences upon release. In 2000, the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), concluded that Owen continued to constitute a significant danger to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. At the Court of Appeal, the Crown wished to tender fresh Affidavit evidence alleging that, since the date of the Board hearing, Owen had punched another patient, threatened to kill another patient, and was found in the possession of prohibited drugs. The Court of Appeal declined to admit this fresh evidence, and proceeded to review the Board’s Order based on evidence available at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Board’s Order as unreasonable and made a direction that Owen be absolutely discharged. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the Board.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Detention – Danger to public – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. Owen, [2002] S.C.J. No. 31, Supreme Court of Canada, June 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, ...

The Respondent (“Starson”) was admitted to hospital after being found not criminally responsible for making death threats, whereupon the Ontario Review Board ordered his detention for 12 months. At that time, Starson refused medical treatment proposed by his psychiatrist for his bipolar disorder. The Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario (the “Board”) held that Starson lacked the capacity to refuse treatment. The Ontario Superior Court overturned the finding of incapacity and the Court of Appeal upheld this finding. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board misapplied the statutory test for capacity and improperly allowed its own conception of Starson’s best interests to influence its finding. The Board’s finding of incapacity could not be upheld.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Right to refuse medical treatment – Capacity – Test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Starson v. Swayze, [2003] S.C.J. No. 33, Supreme Court of Canada, June ...

The Respondent was an employee of the Federal Government who suffered severe and long-standing respiratory problems. After a number of long term absences, the Respondent was dismissed on grounds that she was incapable of performing the duties of her office. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission investigated the matter and dismissed the Respondent’s complaint on the grounds that discrimination had not been shown. The Respondent obtained a copy of the Commission’s investigation report and appealed the Commission’s decision to the Federal Court (Trial Division). The applications judge set aside the Commission’s decision to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the investigator had failed to include a great deal of information that he had obtained from the Ministry and consequently the Respondent did not have an opportunity to respond to the information. The Ministry appealed the Trial Division’s decision, arguing that the Commission’s decision-making process did not violate the Respondent’s right to procedural fairness. In allowing the appeal, the court noted that there was no basis for the notion that an investigator has a duty to disclose all information uncovered in the course of investigation to a complainant. Upon reviewing the investigation report, the court concluded that it was reasonable and adequate and that the Commission was entitled to some deference in their decision to dismiss a complaint.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigative bodies – Duty to disclose evidence – Fairness – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Patent unreasonableness Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), [2003] F.C.J. No. 439, Federal ...

A mutual fund salesperson and his company (“Gill”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission’s finding that Gill had contravened certain provisions of the Securities Act. The main issue before the British Columbia Court of Appeal was whether it was reasonable for the Commission to have found that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements issued by Gill were securities within the meaning of the term “evidence of indebtedness” contained in section 1 of the Securities Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission’s findings were reasonable, and in accord with the purpose of the Securities Act.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Evidence – Jurisdiction British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Gill, [2003] B.C.J. No. 587, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 19, 2003, Rowles, Ryan and Thackray JJ.A. Gill argued that the Commission, in holding that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements were securities, had ...