A teacher (“Kempling”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissing his appeal from a decision of a Hearing Panel of the British Columbia College of Teachers (the “College”) finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the College, and suspending his teaching certificate for one month. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the court below was not in error in upholding the decision of the Panel. The Court of Appeal held that it was not open for Kempling to raise section 2(a) of the Charter as he had failed to appear before the Panel at the first hearing and laid no evidentiary basis to assess any alleged infringement of his religious freedom.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Appeals – Evidence – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Kempling v. British Columbia College ...

The Court ordered a re-hearing by the Police Review Board of a complaint against a police officer on the grounds that the Board had permitted inappropriate cross-examination of the Complainant, had failed to give adequate reasons, and had failed to assist the unrepresented Complainant

Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Unrepresented complainant – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Kelly v. Nova Scotia (Police Commission), [2005] N.S.J. No. 284, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, June 2, 2005, F.C. Edwards ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Association’s Appeals Committee which had overturned the Appellant’s acquittal on charges of professional misconduct and substituted a verdict of guilty on some charges. The Court held that the Appeals Committee had misstated and misapplied the reasonableness standard in reviewing the Conduct Committee’s decision.

Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Nelson v. Alberta Assn. of Registered Nurses, [2005] A.J. No. 821, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 29, 2005, Hunt, Berger and Costigan JJ.A. The Appellant was a Registered Nurse who, after a ten-day hearing, was acquitted by ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Institute’s Appeal Tribunal which had decided to refer two allegations of unprofessional conduct to the Discipline Tribunal Roster Chair and not to allow the Appellant to make representations to the Appeal Tribunal. The Court held that, under the Act, it was premature for the Court to hear an appeal at this stage of the proceedings.

Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Natural justice – Appeal process – Hearings – Conduct of hearings Partington v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, [2005] A.J. No. 787, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 4, 2005, Russell and Picard JJ.A. and Ouellette J. The Appellant was a Chartered Accountant ...

An appeal of a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission was dismissed as the Court held that the decision of the Commission was reasonable

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investment Dealers Association – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Derivative Services Inc. v. Investment Dealers Assn. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 2118, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 25, 2005, R.T.P. Gravely, ...

The Appellant was unable to show that the Ontario Securities Commission’s conclusions in overturning the decision of the Ontario District Council of the Investment Dealers Association with respect to one count against the Appellant was unreasonable; nor was it shown that the Commission failed to show appropriate deference to the findings of the District Council. The Commission did not commit any error in principle in substituting a new penalty.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Boulieris v. Investment Dealers Association. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 1984, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 11, 2005, J.D. Carnwath, J.R.R. Jennings and K.E. Swinton ...

A 25-year veteran (“Read”) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) did not succeed on judicial review from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that he had breached the RCMP Code of Conduct and should be dismissed for discussing an investigation into suspected criminal activity in and about the Immigration Section of the Canadian Mission in Hong Kong with the media, when he had earlier sworn an Oath of Secrecy

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Whistle-blower defence – Evidence – Public interest test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Read v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 990, Federal Court, June 2, 2005, Harrington J. In 1991 and ...

The Court allowed the appeal of a teacher who had been found guilty of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Respondent College. The Court found that the College had erred in concluding that the Appellant’s mental condition was irrelevant to a determination of whether his conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – What constitutes – Mental condition – Relevancy – Penalties – Public interest – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Stuart v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2005] B.C.J. No. 989, British ...

The Court dismissed applications for judicial review by various police officers who had been referred to discipline hearings or informal resolution by the Respondent Commission. The Court found that there had been no breach of procedural fairness at this early stage in the administrative process, the applications were premature and, in two cases, were moot.

Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review application – Premature – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Mootness Sommers v. Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), [2005] O.J. No. 1838, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 10, 2005, J.D. Carnwath, J.R.R. Jennings and K.E. Swinton JJ. The Applicant police officers ...

The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the executive of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (“STF”) and set aside the finding that a school principal (“Casavant”) was guilty of professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming to a teacher where the Court found that the report tendered to the executive by the Professional Ethics Committee (the “Committee”) was inadequate

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Teachers Federation – Appeals – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Reasons – Report adequacy of – Compliance with legislation Casavant v. Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, [2005] S.J. No. 257, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, April 21, 2005, Cameron, Lane and Richards JJ.A. ...