The province unsuccessfully appealed from a decision of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (the “Board”) that a man whose land had been expropriated (“Bishop”) was entitled to an Order directing a Discovery of the province’s expert appraiser

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Expropriation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Utility and Review Board – Practice and procedure – Administrative tribunals – Examination for discovery – Hearings – Appeals – Disclosure – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Bishop, [2006] N.S.J. NO. 411, Nova Scotia ...

The Law Society of Saskatchewan’s application for an Order authorizing an Inspector of the Law Society to enter the office of M Law Firm to obtain privileged file materials relating to a client (“MH”) was dismissed where the Court found that the circumstances of the case did not meet the test of “absolute necessity”

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Solicitor-client privilege – Law Societies – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Disclosure – Absolute Necessity Law Society of Saskatchewan v. E.M., [2006] S.J. No. 608, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, August 10, 2006, Hunter J. The Law Society received a complaint from a person who was adverse ...

The Court set aside, in part, the Human Rights Tribunal’s decision not to dismiss the Complainant’s human rights complaint. The Court also set aside the Tribunal’s order for disclosure of certain documents.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Equality rights – Judicial review – Legislative compliance – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Correctness Cariboo Chevrolet Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. v. Becker, [2006] B.C.J. No. 119, British ...

A physician (“Dr. Litchfield”) applied for judicial review of a decision by the Investigating Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) finding him guilty on 9 out of 10 charges of inappropriate examinations and performing manual therapy without consent. The Court considered whether it was appropriate to deal with the judicial review application at this stage or whether it should defer to allow for completion of the internal process, including a hearing by Council and a statutory right of appeal, as set out in the Medical Profession Act, R.S.A. 220, c.M-11, (the “MPA”). The general rule is that an adequate internal appeal process should be exhausted but the Court retains discretion to allow judicial review in the face of an internal appeal in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances did not exist. Council had broad powers to receive and consider relevant new evidence and address issues concerning legal errors and breaches of the College’s duty of fairness and duty to fairly investigate the complaints.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Investigations – Appeal process – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Applications – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Evidence Litchfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2005] A.J. No. 1771, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”), among others, on the basis that the action itself was an abuse of process. The Plaintiff had fully exhausted his right of review of the Commission’s 1995 and 2003 decisions determining that he had failed to comply with his obligations as and officer and director of a publicly traded company and restraining him from acting in such a capacity in British Columbia for 17 years. This present action for damages was a collateral attack on those decisions and, as such was an abuse of the Court’s process. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s pleading that the Commission committed the tort of abuse of public office failed to set out the essential elements of the tort and, in any event, was vexatious, and should be struck out.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Director of corporation – Penalties – Judicial review – Abuse of public office – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2005] ...

During a judicial review of its own decision, the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (the “Commissioner”) was not permitted to argue the merits of its decision; however, it could explain the record and demonstrate that its decision was not patently unreasonable

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Privacy Commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] B.C.J. No. 2394, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 3, 2005, ...

A former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario brought an application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (“ICAO”) which allowed an appeal from the sanction imposed by the Discipline Committee and ruled that the student’s name was to be disclosed in the publication reporting the sanction and that his discipline file was not to be sealed. The court held that the decision of the Appeal Committee was reasonable and the application was therefore dismissed.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Penalties – Publication ban – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Disclosure – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter John Doe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 3013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 14, 2005, P.T. Matlow, E.M. Macdonald and ...

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision in respect of access to a legal advice memorandum commissioned by the Canadian government regarding a series of Access to Information Requests. Solicitor-client privilege was held to apply to prevent the Commissioner from accessing the memo.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Access to information – Production of records – Prime Minister’s Office – Legal memorandum – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), [2005] F.C.J. No. 926, Federal Court of Appeal, ...

The Court allowed the Applicants’ application for judicial review and set aside a report by the Public Service Integrity Officer (“PSIO”) concerning allegations by the Applicants of wrongdoing at Health Canada. The Court found that the PSIO had failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with its mandate, by failing to address the concerns of the Applicants, and thereby making an error in law.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Integrity Officer – Investigations – Jurisdiction – Public interest – Judicial review – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 712, Federal Court, April 29, 2005, O’Keefe J. The four Applicants were employees of the ...

A freedom of information request led to a consideration of how the scope of standing of a tribunal in a judicial review of its own decision should be determined

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Standing in judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hearings – Parties – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] O.J. No. 1426, Ontario Court of Appeal, April 18, 2005, R.R. McMurtry C.J.O., S.T. Goudge ...