Following an application made by a passenger who had an allergic reaction to a dog on an airplane, the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered Air Canada to develop and implement specific policies and procedures necessary to accommodate persons with dog allergies who are traveling on its airplanes. Air Canada appealed the Agency’s decision on the basis that it was denied procedural fairness. The court found that Air Canada was denied procedural fairness in that the Agency refused to consider its submissions on a number of crucial issues. The matter was returned to the Agency for reconsideration.

24. February 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Transportation Agency – Human rights complaints – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Policies – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Air Canada v. Greenglass, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1286, 2014 FCA 288, Federal Court of Appeal, December 9, 2014, Nadon, Gauthier and Scott ...

Appeal from decision of Licence Appeal Tribunal to revoke liquor licence of strip club operated by Hells Angels member

27. January 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Alcohol and Gaming Commission – Permits and licences – Revocation – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of proof – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Failure to provide reasons 751809 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Famous Flesh Gordon’s) v. Ontario (Registrar, Alcohol and ...

Motion by Associate Chief Justice Douglas for stay of Canadian Judicial Council’s evidentiary decision pending judicial review

27. January 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Judicial Council – Judges – Professional governance and discipline – Investigations – Public interest – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – interlocutory – Disclosure of records – Evidence – admissibility Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.C.J. No. 1149, 2014 FC 1115, Federal Court, November ...

The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the applicant physician’s judicial review application regarding a preliminary decision made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the matter since it found that the complainant had adequate alternative remedies available to him under the Medical Act and failed to exhaust those before seeking judicial review. In respect of an evidentiary issue that was raised at the outset, the Court ruled that letters of complaint from patients underlying the proceedings between the College and the physician were inadmissible in the judicial review record because they were protected by privacy and privilege as per section 71.2(2) of the Medical Act.

25. November 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – admissibility – Remedies – Alternative remedies Cockeram v. College of Physicians ...

Judicial Review of Parole Board of Canada Appeal Division decision denying request to remove international travel restriction

28. October 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – National Parole Board hearings – Discretionary conditions – Evidence – Reasonableness – Policies – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation Latimer v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.C.J. No. 898, 2014 FC 886, Federal Court, September 16, 2014, Manson J. The applicant applied for permanent relief from the international travel ...

Law Society Hearing Panel concluded that appellant lawyer could not be found to have committed fraud in “flip transactions” in absence of evidence from other persons involved in the allegedly fraudulent transactions. The Appeal Panel found that the Hearing Panel made errors of law in respect of what is required to prove fraud, and ordered a new hearing. On review, the court determined that the standard of review was reasonableness, since the decision regarding the application of the test for fraud to the facts is a question of mixed fact and law. The court ruled that the Appeal Panel’s decision was reasonable, and dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

23. September 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Competence – Fraudulent transactions – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Law Society of Upper Canada v. Talarico, [2014] O.J. No. 3617, 2014 ONSC ...

Decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal overturning a decision by the Alberta Securities Commission that found five individuals culpable of charges stemming from insider trading

23. September 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation Walton v. Alberta (Securities Commission), [2014] A.J. No. 909, 2014 ABCA 273, Alberta Court of Appeal, August 29, 2014, P.W.L. Martin, F.F. Slatter JJ.A. and R.E. Nation J. ...

The BC Supreme Court struck down bylaws passed by the College of Pharmacists which prohibited the use of incentive programs in pharmacies. The court found that the College’s decision to pass the bylaws fell outside the range of possible acceptable outcomes, given the competing public interests and the College’s ability to pass bylaws that are narrower in scope to address their reasonable concerns. The bylaws were found to be overbroad and their net effect was found to be harmful to the public interest in obtaining pharmacy services and prescriptions at the lowest price.

23. September 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Pharmacists – Pharmacists – Professional governance and discipline – Rules and by-laws – Change of by-laws – Public interest – Incentive programs – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sobeys West Inc. v. College of Pharmacists ...

The Appellant (Mr. Ayangma) unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of PEI. The Supreme Court had refused Mr. Ayangma’s application for judicial review relating to a decision of the PEI Human Rights Commission. The PEI Human Rights Commission had dismissed Mr. Ayangma’s complaint relating to his job application for the Respondent (Canada Health Infoway Inc.).

26. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Stare decisis Ayangma v Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2014] P.E.I.J. No. 33, 2014 PECA 13, Prince ...

The Applicant (Mr. Plotkine) unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board had permitted 10 variances for the Respondent neighbours (Allan and Susan Seidenfeld) to build a home that did not comply with the building code.

26. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal boards – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Judicial review – Appeals – Parties – Standing – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Plotkine v Seidenfeld, [2014] O.J. No. 3375, 2014 ONSC 4157, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 16, 2014, T.R. Lederer ...