The Appellant appealed the reference hearing judge’s decision to refuse to grant a firearms licence. In December of 1997, the Appellant was issued a Firearms Acquisition Certificate valid to December 2002. As a result of an allegation of historical sexual assault, the Chief Firearms Officer examined the Appellant’s criminal record, which included convictions for assaults 13 and 18 years earlier. His licence to possess firearms was revoked on the grounds that he had “demonstrated a history of behaviour that includes violence”. The Appellant applied for a reference before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. The decision was upheld and he appealed that decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who held that the Appellant had not satisfied the court that cancelling the revocation was not justified.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Firearms registration – Firearms – Licences – Revocation – Evidence – Prior criminal charges – Public safety – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Retrospective operation R. v. D.L.B., [2003] O.J. No. 2471, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 12, 2003, Durno J. 45-year-old D.B. had used firearms for a long time. In 1992, ...

A psychiatric nurse (“Bennet”) was successful in his appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Association of Manitoba (the “Association”). The court found that the Committee’s decision finding Bennet guilty of professional misconduct for having sexual intercourse with a former client was not reasonable as the Committee did not have sufficient evidence before it on the threshold issue of boundaries and/or therapeutic relationships.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Psychiatric Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Sexual relations with former patient – Boundaries and therapeutic relationships – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Evidence Bennet v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses’ Assn. of Manitoba, [2003] M.J. No. 163, Manitoba Court of Appeal, May 15, 2003, Monnin, Hamilton ...

A helicopter pilot (“Veideman”) was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had not erred in concluding that Veideman had not exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention of a regulation by unlawfully operating an aircraft at a distance of less than 500 feet from a person

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Pilots – Disciplinary proceedings – Due diligence – Evidence – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Veideman v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2003] F.C.J. No. 751, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, May 12, 2003, Snider J. Veideman was a helicopter pilot transporting skiers in ...

Poulin had brought an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination that a civil claim was barred pursuant to s. 68(1) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Board and Poulin sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal held that the Board acted within its jurisdiction. In the result, the judicial review application was dismissed.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Worker – Definition – Liability of sole director of a corporation – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Evidence Poulin v. Manitoba (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2003] M.J. No. 122, Manitoba Court of Appeal, April 23, 2003, ...

A mutual fund salesperson and his company (“Gill”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission’s finding that Gill had contravened certain provisions of the Securities Act. The main issue before the British Columbia Court of Appeal was whether it was reasonable for the Commission to have found that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements issued by Gill were securities within the meaning of the term “evidence of indebtedness” contained in section 1 of the Securities Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission’s findings were reasonable, and in accord with the purpose of the Securities Act.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Evidence – Jurisdiction British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Gill, [2003] B.C.J. No. 587, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 19, 2003, Rowles, Ryan and Thackray JJ.A. Gill argued that the Commission, in holding that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements were securities, had ...

An employee of the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s was unsuccessful in her application to set aside the decision of the Human Rights Commission not to refer her complaint to a board of inquiry. The Court held that the Commission exercised its administrative screening function in a reasonable manner. The legislative scheme in the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14 required the Court to show considerable deference to a decision of the Human Rights Commission. While it may have been preferable for the Commission to have provided fuller reasons, it was under no statutory obligation to do so. The reasons given by the Commission adequately indicated to the employee that, following a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, her complaint did not meet the Commission’s threshold level for referring the matter to a board of inquiry.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Evidence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness Spurrell v. Newfoundland (Human Rights Commission), [2003] N.J. No. 53, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, February 25, 2003, Adams J. An employee of ...

A professional dog handler, Mr. Lee, was abusive towards volunteer staff. The Confirmation Show Committee recommended that he be found guilty of infractions of show rules and that he no longer be allowed to participate in any Alberta Kennel Club (“AKC”) shows. The complaint was brought before the Discipline Committee of the Canadian Kennel Committee (“CKC”). During the hearing, the Committee members solicited more information about Mr. Lee from a representative of the complainant. The complainant’s representative gave a great deal of irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and the Discipline Committee imposed a two-year period of debarment. Mr. Lee’s appeal to the Appeal Committee of the CKC was dismissed. Mr. Lee then brought an appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, who concluded that the decisions of consensual tribunals are reviewable by a court of law and that Mr. Lee’s procedural rights were breached when the Discipline Committee solicited irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence prior to making its decision.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Procedural requirements – Jurisdiction – Evidence Lee v. Canadian Kennel Club Appeal Committee, [2003] A.J. No. 64, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, January 17, 2003, Lee J. The complaint arose out of dispute between Mr. Lee, a professional dog handler, and ...

On the morning of the first day of a College hearing, Dr. Howatt requested an adjournment based on the report of his psychiatrist indicating that he was mentally ill and unable to instruct counsel. The College objected to the filing of the report unless the psychiatrist was present to be cross-examined. The Discipline Committee refused to adjourn the hearing and the College proceeded to call evidence. Dr. Howatt was found guilty on all counts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the refusal of the adjournment was a denial of natural justice. The application was allowed and the decision quashed.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Adjournment of hearing – Standard of review – Reasonableness Howatt v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 138, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 21, 2003, Carnwath, Whalen and MacDougall ...

The Health Professions Appeal Board (the “Board”) conceded it had exceeded its jurisdiction by making findings of gross criminal misconduct against a physician and relying on materials which were never disclosed to the physician or his counsel. The Board agreed that its decision should be quashed but submitted that the matter should be remitted back for a new review before a differently constituted panel of the Board. The Court of Appeal refused to remit the matter back to the Board, and found that there were exceptional circumstances (the interest of the public in the matter was remote and the delay was serious) which warranted the exercise of its discretion to refuse to remit.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Discretion of court – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Tribunal decisions – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Delay – Public interest Rathé v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), [2002] O.J. No. 4787, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 6, 2002, Blair, ...

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 ...