A physician (“Dr. Young”) successfully appealed both the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (the “College”) in which he was found guilty of unbecoming, improper, unprofessional or discreditable conduct and the associated penalty

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Reliability – Witnesses – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Young v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [2004] S.J. No. 21, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 13, 2004, Koch J. Dr. Young was ...

A worker (“Jones”) successfully sought re-hearing of his petition for judicial review of a Workers’ Compensation Board (the “Board”) decision which had denied him a loss of earnings pension. Jones alleged that the reviewing judge wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing a remedy in the nature of certiorari and that the decision was wrong on its merits

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Loss of earnings pension – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Certiorari Jones v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2556, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 7, 2003, Esson, Donald and Smith JJ.A. Jones initially sought compensation for a work-related injury to his lower back ...

The appeal of the College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (the “College”) from the decision of the Health Disciplines Board (the “Board”) reversing a decision of the College Conduct and Competency Committee (the “Committee”) regarding the conduct of a member (“Zieniewicz”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the Committee failed to properly consider all evidence at the hearing of Zieniewicz and that the Board properly applied the standard of review in reversing the Committee’s decision.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Hearing Aid Practitioners – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Supervision of trainee – Delegated supervision – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (Council of) v. Zieniewicz, [2003] A.J. ...

A chiropractor, convicted of six counts of professional misconduct and sentenced to nine months suspension and costs of over $80,000, unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Suspensions – Costs – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ressel v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3032, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 25, 2003, O’Driscoll, Then and Lang ...

The Applicant worker employed in the coal mines of Cape Breton Development Corporation (“Devco”), a federal corporation, applied for workers compensation based on loss of lung function due to occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board refused his claims for want of evidence of loss of lung function. In dismissing the appeals, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal held the worker to the civil standard of proof, because he was a federal employee claiming under the Government Employees Compensation Act (“GECA”). The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the matter should be remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal for review of all the relevant evidence in light of the provisions of the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Act.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Federal and provincial legislation – Government employees – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Jurisdiction McLellan v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2003] N.S.J. No. 365, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 14, 2003, Glube C.J.N.S., Freeman and ...

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 ...

The Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre (“Ingamo”) appealed from a decision of the Fair Practices Officer in which Bergeron’s complaint of discrimination was allowed and damages for the lost wages and humiliation were awarded. The court allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Fair Practices Officer.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Fair Practices Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre v. Bergeron, [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 51, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, July 30, 2003, Vertes J. Bergeron, ...

A homeowner (“Covey”) who had leased his home under a one year lease to tenants who later terminated their tenancy on the advice of their physician, applied for judicial review of two decisions of an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406. In the first decision, the arbitrator had ruled in favour of the tenants and, in the second one, the arbitrator reviewed and rejected fresh evidence that Covey brought forward in support of his position. The court dismissed Covey’s application on the basis that the decision of the arbitrator and his review of that decision were not patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Termination – Evidence – Damages – Arbitration and award – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Covey v. St. Denis, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1795, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2003, Melnick J. Covey had rented his house to Tyrone and Rosemarie St. Denis ...

An inmate at Springhill Penitentiary, with a 35-year history of smoking marijuana prior to his incarceration (“Patriquen”), brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction requiring Health Canada to provide him with marijuana in accordance with his recently granted exemption from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, an exemption which allowed him to use cannabis to treat medical conditions. The Federal Court held that Patriquen failed to provide evidence illustrating that the injunction should be granted.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Use of narcotics – Medicinal use of marijuana – Judicial review – Evidence – Remedies – Injunctions – Test Patriquen v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1186, Federal Court, July 29, 2003, Blais J. Patriquen was incarcerated in September of 2002 after being charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose ...

The Petitioner sought a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator who, in a “letter decision”, concluded that the Petitioner had failed to comply with the demand under section 254 of the Criminal Code to supply a breath sample and imposed a prohibition of driving for 90 days. The test on judicial review was whether the decision was patently unreasonable. The court held that there was no evidence that the officer read the written demand to the accused and therefore the adjudicator’s decision to impose a 90-day prohibition was patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyzer test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Evidence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hewitt v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1877, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 9, 2003, Williamson J. The Petitioner sought a judicial review of ...