The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld a tribunal decision that suspended a pharmacist for two years for false, illegal prescriptions. Although the suspension was at the higher end of the scale, the Appeal Court found the penalty fell within the range of permissible outcomes under the reasonableness standard of review.

26. March 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Pharmacists – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigations – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Jurisdiction of court – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Costs Fadelle v. Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists, [2013] N.S.J. No. 90, ...

With respect to a tribunal’s findings of credibility, there is an important distinction between guessing, conjecture, and speculation on the one hand and drawing legal inferences from evidence where inferences can appropriately be drawn. In this case, the Court in a judicial review proceeding quashed one aspect of a tribunal’s credibility findings on the basis that it was unreasonable.

26. March 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigations – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ali v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, [2013] S.J. No. 54, 2013 SKQB ...

The Fraser Health Authority was successful on judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) whereby WCAT held that there was a causal link between breast cancer suffered by three respondents working for the Health Authority and their employment

21. March 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Occupational disease – Expert evidence – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Fraser Health Authority v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2013] B.C.J. No. 605, 2013 BCSC 524, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 28, ...

This was an application by the Chief of the Edmonton Police Service (the “Chief”) for leave to appeal a decision by the Law Enforcement Review Board (the “Board”)

27. December 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Enforcement Review Board – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Edmonton (City) Police Service v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), [2012] A.J. No. 1172, 2012 ABCA 357, Alberta ...

The appellant challenged a finding on a statutory appeal that a letter to the editor did not constitute hate speech. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the letter to the editor was on a matter of public interest and, even if offensive, did not constitute hate speech and was protected as expression of opinion.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights complaints – Sexual orientation – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Lund v. Boissoin, [2012] A.J. No. 1036, 2012 ABCA 300, Alberta Court ...

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim against the defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on the grounds that it was plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff had claimed damages against the College for damages caused by the alleged malpractice of a physician who was a member of the College. The plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleged that the College did not properly investigate the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the physician and that its investigation process was not transparent.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Privilege and immunity – Physicians and surgeons – Governance – Investigations – Judicial review – Disclosure – Evidence – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process Kwabanza v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2012] O.J. No. 4966, ...

A Regulatory Board did not perform the function it was statutorily required to in accordance with procedural fairness. The Court of Appeal held that the Motor Transport Board did not accept the apellant’s third application for filing and review the material filed to assess whether it met the threshold that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, required that the application be granted and instead dismissed the application on grounds that it constituted an abuse of process. The Board did not give the appellant a meaningful opportunity to respond to that decision.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Motor Transport Board – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Prairie Coach Charter Services Ltd. v. Manitoba (Motor Transport Board), [2012] M.J. No. 342, 2012 MBCA 95, Manitoba Court of Appeal, October 12, 2012, F.M. Steel, M.M. Monnin and A.D. MacInnes JJ.A. The appellant, ...

A 54 year old man applied for judicial review of a decision of the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, which had upheld the decision of the Minister of Social Development denying him a ‘persons with disabilities’ designation. His petition was dismissed.

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal – Persons with disabilities – Severe – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Garbutt v. British Columbia (Minister of Social Development), [2012] B.C.J. No. 1805, 2012 ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that there is no human rights defence to a professional who steals narcotics and forges related records, notwithstanding that the professional has a narcotic dependency

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Nurses – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming –  Addiction –  Penalties and suspensions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review –  Evidence Wright v. College and Assn. of Registered Nurses of Alberta (Appeals Committee), [2012] A.J. No. 943, ...

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal’s (“WCAT”) interpretation of its policy, which resulted in a decision not to use class average wages to calculate the appellant worker’s permanent disability pension benefits, was found by the Court of Appeal not to be patently unreasonable. There was nothing in the WCAT reasons to suggest that the policy could never apply to migrants from other provinces or to workers whose recent actual earnings reflected their choices about where to work or what kind of job to take. Rather, the reasons disclosed a finding that the policy did not apply to the appellant given the particular facts before the WCAT. Interpretation of Board policy fell within WCAT’s exclusive jurisdiction and lay at the heart of the WCAT’s specialized function and expertise on appeal. Courts in judicial review proceedings are required to show deference and interfere only when an interpretation is patently unreasonable. In this case, WCAT’s interpretation of the policy turned on recognizing the purpose of the policy to protect against inequitable use of actual earnings where those earnings are not sufficient to allow a determination of what best represents the worker’s long-term loss of earnings in circumstances where there was an element of unfairness in using past earnings rather than a class average, i.e. where a worker’s income would be almost certain to increase substantially. Such an interpretation was not “clearly irrational” nor did it fail to accord with reason or border on the absurd. As a result, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Average earnings – method of calculation – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Phillips v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. ...