A group of petitioner residents applied to quash two rezoning bylaws adopted by the council of the District of West Vancouver. The application alleged that West Vancouver city council had breached procedural fairness by receiving a report from the Director of Planning regarding the rezoning issue following the close of a public hearing. The report was not made available to the public prior to the council adopting the bylaws, which had the effect of allowing three lots that were formerly used for single family dwellings to be redeveloped for 10 residential townhouses.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Change of by-laws – Appeals – Judicial review – Public hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure Hubbard v. West Vancouver (District), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2546, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 28, 2003, Stromberg-Stein J. The court held that there was a breach of procedural fairness ...

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 ...

An application by the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“CLO”), for judicial review of an Order and a reconsideration decision issued by an adjudicator of the Respondent Information and Privacy Commissioner, to the effect that the senior adjudicator, David Goodis, be precluded from participating in the judicial review of the Order and subsequent reconsideration decision issued by him regarding a request by Jane Doe, a former client of CLO, for the file created while she was a child client of CLO and where CLO acted as her litigation guardian in two motor vehicle accident cases. The motion was dismissed and the Court considered and dismissed the judicial review application itself.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Privacy commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Statutory interpretation – Adjudication – Crown counsel – Definition – Crown litigation privilege – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] O.J. No. ...

The court, on judicial review, found that the interpretation given by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) to subsection 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”), which allowed an institution to deny the requester the right to know whether a record exists, even if it does not, was “unsupported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination” (Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.J. No. 17). In the result, the Commissioner’s decision was set aside and the Ministry’s decision to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records in relation to the requests was confirmed.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – 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), [2003] O.J. No. 2601, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 26, 2003, Blair, Lang and C. ...

On application by a customer of Telus Communications Inc. (“Telus) for local residential service under provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the “PIPEDA”), the court held that Telus had valid consent under PIPEDA to publish its customers’ personal information in Telus directories. The court also held that PIPEDA did not restrict Telus from charging a fee for the provision of Non-Published Number Service (“NPNS”).

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Telephone listings – Fee for unlisted numbers Englander v. Telus Communications Inc., [2003] F.C.J. No. 975, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 3, 2003, Blais J. The Applicant Englander, a customer of Telus Communications Inc. (“Telus”) for local residential telephone ...

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers judge’s ruling that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (the “Commissioner”) erred in law by failing to find that the release by the Legal Services Society (the “Respondent”) to a local newspaper reporter (the “Appellant”) of the names of the top five “billers” for immigration and criminal matters would breach solicitor-client privilege. The standard of review applied was one of correctness.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Legal Services Society – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Privacy commissioner – Standard of review – Correctness Legal Services Society v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1093, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May ...

Although job related information pertaining to RCMP officers: (a) the list of historical postings, their status and date, (b) the list of ranks and the dates they achieved those ranks, (c) their years of service, and (d) their anniversary date of service, constituted “personal information” as defined under s.3 of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.-P-21, it should nonetheless be disclosed because it fell within the “position or functions of the individual exception” under s.3(j). The information did not reveal anything about the competence or divulge any personal opinion given outside the course of employment, but rather provided information relevant to understanding the functions performed by the officers.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Exceptions – Federal employees – Personal information – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2003] S.C.J. No. 7, Supreme Court of Canada, March 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and ...

Documents, specifically expert reports, created in the course of an investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.165 (the “Act”), because they were “advice or recommendations developed … for a public body”, and exempt pursuant to section 13 of the Act. The documents were not exempt from disclosure on the grounds they were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Definition – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – Expert reports – Legal advice privilege – Litigation privilege – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Delay College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2779, ...

A complainant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Baltruweit”) was successful in his application to have the court overturn the decision of the Commission to dismiss his complaint at the investigative stage. The court held that the failure of the Commission to provide Baltruweit with the substance of the evidence of a legal opinion relating to the complaint was a breach of its duty of procedural fairness and the matter was referred back to the Commission for a re-determination.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Evidence – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Hearings – Disclosure – Solicitor-client privilege Baltruweit v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1615, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, November 19, 2002, Gibson J. Baltruweit was employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence ...

Stinchcombe succeeded in his appeal of the decision allowing the Law Society of Alberta to proceed with two charges against him relating to events occurring in 1986 and 1987. The Court held that Stinchcombe’s ability to defend the charges had been prejudiced by the Law Society’s inordinate and inexcusable delay and that this constituted a denial of natural justice.

28. May 2002 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Delay – Hearings – Disclosure – Judicial review – Standard of review- Correctness test Stinchcombe v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] A.J. No. 544, Alberta Court of Appeal, April 26, 2002, Conrad, O’Leary and Paperny JJ.A. On ...