The Court dismissed an appeal from a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to refer a complaint to a hearing panel of the Commission. The reviewing judge had correctly found that the chief commissioner’s decision was reasonable.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Investigations – Evidence – Role of investigator – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong, [2005] A.J. No. 1051, Alberta Court of ...

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the “LCBO”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court overturning the decision of an Administrative Tribunal refusing to issue a witness summons requested by a liquor licensee, Lifford Wine Agencies (“Lifford”), on a motion to stay a hearing before the Tribunal in which the possible revocation of Lifford’s licence was at issue. Lifford asserted that its right to a fair hearing was irreparably compromised by interference with witnesses it proposed to call to give evidence in support of its defence to allegations that it violated provisions of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act and applied for a motion to stay the hearing. During an adjournment in the stay motion, the LCBO engaged the services of a private investigator. The investigator interviewed most of the witnesses summoned by Lifford. Lifford sought the issuance of a summons to require the investigator to provide evidence before the Tribunal on the stay motion and to produce transcripts or other recordings of the interviews. The Tribunal declined to issue a summons on the basis that the investigator’s proposed evidence was irrelevant to the subject matter of the stay motion. On judicial review, the Divisional Court overturned the ruling and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Permits & licences – Stay of proceedings – Appeals – Hearings – Judicial review application – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witness tampering – Natural justice – Evidence – Privilege Ontario (Liquor Control Board) v. Lifford Wine Agencies, [2005] O.J. No. 3042, Ontario ...

The Consumers’ Association of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. and the Manitoba Society of Seniors (the “Applicants”) applied for judicial review of an Order made by the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba (the “Board”) with respect to an ex parte Order of the Board that permitted Centra Gas Manitoba Inc. (“Centra”) to increase its natural gas rates by approximately 10% effective February 1, 2005 without any notice to or input from Centra’s customers. The court held that there was no evidence presented to the Board that supported the exceptional requirements necessary to justify of an ex parte hearing. The Board therefore should not have heard Centra’s interim application on an ex parte basis and the Applicants were entitled to an Order quashing the interim rate increase ordered by the Board following the ex parte hearing.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Rate increases – Appeals – Hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Ex parte orders – Evidence – Interpretation of legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Consumers’ Assn. of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. v. Manitoba (Public ...

A dentist (“Dr. Sigesmund”) with a practice restricted to the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders was partially successful in his appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) where he was originally found guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Judicial review – Witnesses – Bias – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sigesmund v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 3267, Ontario Superior Court of ...

A teacher (“Kempling”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissing his appeal from a decision of a Hearing Panel of the British Columbia College of Teachers (the “College”) finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the College, and suspending his teaching certificate for one month. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the court below was not in error in upholding the decision of the Panel. The Court of Appeal held that it was not open for Kempling to raise section 2(a) of the Charter as he had failed to appear before the Panel at the first hearing and laid no evidentiary basis to assess any alleged infringement of his religious freedom.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Appeals – Evidence – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Kempling v. British Columbia College ...

The Court allowed an appeal by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board and reinstated a decision of the Respondent’s Appeal Tribunal which had found the Respondent, Stetler, guilty of engaging in the unlawful sale of tobacco outside the auspices of the Board’s quota system. The reviewing judge had erred in failing to properly determine the appropriate standard of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decision and by applying a standard of correctness rather than reasonableness.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Marketing Boards – Penalties – Judicial review – Evidence – Witnesses – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Stetler v. Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, [2005] O.J. No. 2817, Ontario Court of Appeal, July 8, 2005, S. Borins, K.N. Feldman and E.A. ...

The Court ordered a re-hearing by the Police Review Board of a complaint against a police officer on the grounds that the Board had permitted inappropriate cross-examination of the Complainant, had failed to give adequate reasons, and had failed to assist the unrepresented Complainant

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Unrepresented complainant – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Kelly v. Nova Scotia (Police Commission), [2005] N.S.J. No. 284, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, June 2, 2005, F.C. Edwards ...

The P.E.I. Court of Appeal increased the general damages awarded to the Appellant for a breach of his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from $15,000 to $75,000 on the basis that the trial judge overlooked evidence regarding the consequences of the Respondent’s infringement on the Appellant

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Judicial review – Appeals – Evidence – Standard of review of appellate court Morin v. Prince Edward Island Regional Administrative Unit No. 3 School Board, [2005] P.E.I.J. No. 42, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Appeal Division, ...

A 25-year veteran (“Read”) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) did not succeed on judicial review from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that he had breached the RCMP Code of Conduct and should be dismissed for discussing an investigation into suspected criminal activity in and about the Immigration Section of the Canadian Mission in Hong Kong with the media, when he had earlier sworn an Oath of Secrecy

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Whistle-blower defence – Evidence – Public interest test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Read v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 990, Federal Court, June 2, 2005, Harrington J. In 1991 and ...

The Court overturned the decision of a Provincial Court Judge who had reversed the decision of a Firearms Officer and directed that the Respondent be given a licence to possess and acquire firearms

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Firearms Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Judicial notice – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Chief Firearms Officer for the Province of Alberta) v. Pogson, [2005] A.J. No. 281, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 14, 2005, Slatter J. The Respondent had applied for a firearms ...