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 ...

The court dismissed an application for judicial review and held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not breached the requirement of procedural fairness in not placing certain documents before the Commission and that the Commission’s exercise of discretion regarding a limitation period did not exceed its jurisdiction and was not in error

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Limitations – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hassaram v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 29, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 7, 2005, ...

The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upholding an award by a NAFTA arbitration tribunal which had found that Mexico had engaged in discriminatory conduct by granting tax rebates to domestic companies that were denied to a company engaged in a similar business owned by a U.S. citizen (“Karpa”). The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the arbitration tribunal was entitled to a high degree of deference and Mexico had not shown any basis upon which to interfere with the arbitration award.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – NAFTA – Tax rebates – Companies – Less favourable treatment – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure United Mexican States v. Karpa, [2005] O.J. No. 16, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, D.H. Doherty, R.P. Armstrong ...

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed this appeal of the Divisional Court’s decision on a judicial review of a decision of Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commissioner’s decision with respect to section 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the test to be applied when the head of a Provincial institution, who cannot disclose the contents of a record because that would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, seeks to respond to a request for information by refusing to confirm or deny the very existence of the record.

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Privacy commissioner – Disclosure – Invasion of personal privacy – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 4813, Ontario Court of Appeal, ...

The court found a reasonable apprehension of bias to exist in circumstances where a physician testified at a College disciplinary hearing as both a fact and expert witness and was subsequently appointed to be a member of the College Discipline Committee shortly before the decision pertaining to the hearing at which she gave evidence was released

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Committee members – Impartiality – Judicial review – Witnesses – Bias – Disclosure – Procedural requirements and fairness Li v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. ...

A decision of the appeal tribunal, constituted under the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Act, to disclose the entire file of the worker to her employer was quashed as the tribunal erred in law in its consideration of the notion of “relevance” resulting in an order which was unreasonable

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Workers Compensation Boards – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter O’Donnell (Re), [2004] Y.J. No. 76, Yukon Territory Supreme Court, July 19, 2004, Veale J. An appeal tribunal appointed under the Yukon Worker’s Compensation Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c.231, ordered, on ...

The court overturned the decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) who ordered a government agency, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (the “MPAC”), to provide a collection agency with an electronic record containing personal information of Ontario residents as the Commissioner erred in finding that there was legislation that expressly authorized the MPAC to disclose information for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (the “MFIPPA”)

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Electronic records – Municipalities – Property assessment – Statutory interpretation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 2118, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 21, 2004, Benotto, Dunn and ...

The court declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...

In reviewing the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that no injustice occurred as a result of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s decision not to formally invite the Guide Outfitters Association to participate in a written inquiry concerning the production of records relating to the location of grizzly bear kills

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Privacy commissioner – Disclosure – Judicial review – Application to participate in hearing – Natural justice – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter British Columbia (Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] ...

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia (“AIBC”) was unsuccessful on an application for judicial review of the adjudication of a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act request for various employment contracts of executives with AIBC, made by a former employee of AIBC (“Redenbach”)

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Architectural Institute of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] B.C.J. No. 465, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 18, 2004, Metzger J. Redenbach requested various information from AIBC, some of ...