A former Coast Guard employee (“Brooks”) brought a complaint of racial discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “Act”) against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (the “DFO”). The Human Rights Tribunal determined that DFO had discriminated against Brooks based on his race. The Tribunal then declined to consider the remedies of reinstatement and back pay which Brooks sought. The Attorney General of Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside the decision that the DFO had discriminated against Brooks and Brooks applied for judicial review of the decision to decline to consider the remedies.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Employment – Appointment – Remedies – Hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Brooks v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1569, Federal Court, ...

The Appellant dentist appealed a decision made by the Discipline Committee of the College finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a three-month suspension, terms and conditions related to the practice of orthodontics and costs of $10,000. The Court upheld the College’s decision and dismissed the Appellant’s arguments including reasonable apprehension of bias, issue estoppel/res judicata, inappropriate expert or opinion evidence, and insufficient disclosure by the College.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Investigations – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Evidence – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Natural justice – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test – Procedural requirements and fairness – Estoppel and res judicata ...

The Court allowed an appeal by an accused from a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he continue to be detained at a maximum security psychiatric institution. The Court held that the Board had erred in law in failing to recognize its inquisitorial role and to consider making further inquiries.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Mental health – Detention – Adult in need of protection – Investigations – Evidence – Criminal Code – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. LePage, [2006] O.J. No. 4486, Ontario Court of Appeal, November 9, 2006, M.J. Moldaver, ...

Dowling was successful in his application for judicial review of the decision of a Human Rights Panel of the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission where the Court held that the Commissioner erred in proceeding to determine the issue of damages without hearing submissions from the parties

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence Dowling v. Prince Edward Island, [2006] P.E.I.J. No. 52, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, September 25, 2006, J.R. Matheson C.J.T.D. Dowling alleged that the ...

An RCMP officer (“Gill”) was successful in his application for judicial review of a RCMP Commissioner’s decision where the Court held that the Commissioner erred in upholding the decision of an RCMP Adjudication Board imposing sanctions on Gill for disgraceful conduct

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Adjudications – Police Commission – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Sufficient notice – Evidence Gill v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1395, Federal Court, September 18, 2006, O’Keefe J. Gill joined the RCMP in ...

The appeal by Page from a decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick (the “Commission”) was allowed where the Court found that the Appeals Tribunal made a palpable and overriding error in upholding the Commission’s decision to reopen and reject Page’s claim for benefits

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial Review – Statutory provisions – Evidence – Jurisdiction Page v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2006] N.B.J. No. 394, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, September 21, 2006, W.S. Turnbull, J.Z. Daigle and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. ...

The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Marsden, applied for judicial review of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) decision. The Board held that Dr. Taylor, the Respondent, was allowed to administer anti-hypertension medication generally to the Applicants’ incapacitated mother. The Court held that the proper standard of review of the Board’s decision was simple reasonableness. It allowed the Applicants’ appeal in part.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Consent to treatment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Parties – Death of a party – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Marsden v. Taylor, [2006] O.J. ...

The Applicant, Mo’s Sport’s Parlour, applied for a judicial review of the Board (the “Board”) of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision cancelling its licence which permitted it to operate a bar, serve liquor and have specified gaming machines in the bar. Applying the standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the Commission did not breach the rules of natural justice by refusing to allow the Applicant to ask certain questions on cross-examination of a witness. It also concluded that there was a thread of reason through the Commission’s written reasons supporting this conclusion. The Court dismissed the Application for judicial review.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence – Witnesses – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mo’s Sports Parlour (2000) Ltd. v. ...

The Applicant, Dr. Cimolai applied for an order setting aside an investigative report. Dr. Cimolai also sought an order to prohibit the Respondent Hospital from proceeding with a complaint against him, and for the Applicant’s reinstatement to his former position with the Hospital. The Court concluded that it would be premature to conduct a judicial review and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investigations – Judicial review application – Premature – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Witnesses – Compliance with legislation Cimolai v. Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2199, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 3, 2006, Cullen ...

A lawyer (Hamilton) successfully appealed from a decision of the Law Society, which had found her guilty of professional misconduct for visiting a jail with a prisoner’s girlfriend and identifying that girlfriend as her assistant in order to facilitate access to the prisoner.

24. October 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Hearings – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties – Suspension – Judicial review – Witnesses – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Hamilton v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2006] B.C.J. No. 1741, British Columbia Court of Appeal, August ...