Court remitted an arbitrator’s decision regarding a dispute of transfer of fishing licences to be heard by a different arbitrator

19. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration and award – Interpretation of contract – Fisheries – Licences – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Failure to provide reasons Layman Estate v. Layman, [2014] N.J. No. 181, 2014 NLTD(G) 66, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, June 20, 2014, ...

The Appellant employer was successful in seeking an appeal relating to a decision by Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (the”WCAT”) awarding the Respondent an increased permanent impairment benefit (the “PMI”)

22. July 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Policies – Workers compensation – Occupational disease — Benefits – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation Enterprise Cape Breton Corp. v. Anderson, [2014] N.S.J. No. 286, 2014 NSCA 59, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, June 10, 2014, M. ...

A gastroenterologist (“Dr. Gopinath”) secured a ruling from the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“Appeal Board”) renewing his privileges without condition. The Toronto East General Hospital (the “Hospital”) was unsuccessful on an appeal where it attempted to restore the earlier decision of the Hospital Board denying him privileges unless he signed an undertaking and agreement to participate in the Physician Health Program (“PHP”).

24. June 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Hearings – Hearing de novo – Physicians and Surgeons – Hospital privileges – Disruptive behaviour – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Toronto East General Hospital v. Gopinath, [2014], O.J. No. 2248, 2014 ONSC 2731, Ontario Superior Court ...

The Court quashed part of the Health Professions Review Board’s decision to return a complaint matter to the Inquiry Committee, including all of the additional documents submitted by the complainant as new evidence. An adjudicator previously assigned to the case at the Review Board had already decided that only 5 of the 9 additional documents were admissible. Thus, the part of the Review Board’s decision which directed the Inquiry Committee to consider all 9 of the additional documents was quashed. The petitioner had also made an application for the use of pseudonyms in the case, and the sealing of the file. The Court dismissed the application because the petition did not involve any extraordinarily sensitive personal information and disclosure would not undermine the purpose of the petition.

22. April 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health Professions Review Board – Physicians and Surgeons – Competence – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Publication ban JC v. Health Professions Review Board, [2014] B.C.J. No. 404, 2014 BCSC 372, British Columbia ...

The respondent Institute of Chartered Accountants cross-appealed the Discipline Tribunal’s finding of not guilty on the third of three charges of misconduct. The Tribunal had applied the Kienapple principle, and held that charges 1 and 3 were not sufficiently distinct in order to justify a finding of guilt on both. The Appeal Tribunal allowed the cross-appeal, and at the Court of Appeal level, the Court found that the Appeal Tribunal properly applied the Kineapple principle, and agreed that the elements which go to guilt in charges 1 and 3 differed, notwithstanding the fact that they relate to a common act.

22. April 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Institute of Chartered Accountants – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Evidence – Kienapple rule Danyluik v. Alberta (Institute of Chartered Accountants, Complaints Inquiry Committee), [2014] A.J. No. 186, 2014 ABCA 78, Alberta Court of Appeal, February 26, 2014, P.W.L. Martin and B.K. O’Ferrall ...

The Applicant Optometrist was unsuccessful in seeking judicial review of the Respondent College’s decision not to disclose an expert opinion to him before deciding to refer a complaint to its hearing committee

25. March 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Optometrists – Optometrists – Professional governance and discipline – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Hearings – Disclosure – Evidence – Judicial review – Investigations – Procedural requirements and fairness Levesque v. Nova Scotia College of Optometrists, [2014] N.S.J. No. 28, 2014 NSSC 22, Nova Scotia ...

On judical review the court found that a failure to interview supervisors, when there is an allegation made against them that they were discriminatory, amounted to a breach of procedural fairness pursuant to the test set out in Slattery v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), (1994) 73 F.T.R. 161.

25. March 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Tessier v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2014] N.S.J. No. 76, 2014 NSSC 65, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, February 19, 2014, A.J. LeBlanc J. From 1998 ...

The appellant appealed a Chambers Judge’s decision denying her application for judicial review, on the ground that the Chambers Judge refused to adjourn the judicial review application in order for her to obtain a transcript of the hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. In fact, no application to adjourn was made to the judge. The judge made a finding of fact that the appellant was advised that she could order a transcript and was told how, but she had not done so. Because a transcript of the Tribunal hearing could be obtained, filing an affidavit setting out the alleged procedural fairness issues was unnecessary and inadmissible. In any event, the judge was satisfied based on the Tribunal’s written reasons that the allegations that the hearing had been unfair were unsustainable and having a transcript would not alter the result of the proceedings before him. There was no error of principle.

25. February 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Hearings – Fairness – Appeals – Practice and procedure – Adjournment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Caster v. Walter F. Evans (1973) Ltd., [2013] B.C.J. No. 2741, 2013 BCCA 529, British Columbia ...

The appellant registered nurse was denied registration as a Nurse Practitioner by the Registration Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “Registration Committee”), on the basis that she had failed written examinations on three occasions and there was no discretion to afford a fourth attempt. The appellant applied for review of the Registration Committee’s decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the “Board”) which affirmed the Registration Committee’s decision. The appellant then appealed the Board’s decision to the Court, which dismissed her appeal, finding that the Board’s decision was reasonable, and there was no evidence before it upon which they could have found the examination to be unfair to the applicant because of its American content or the stress created by having to write the examination. What was before the Board was little more than a bare allegation of unfairness advanced by the appellant.

25. February 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Nurses – Nurses – Governance – Permits and licences – Competence – Training requirements – Fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Al Baba v. College of Nurses of Ontario, [2013] O.J. No. 5392, 2013 ONSC 7335, Ontario Superior ...

The Law Enforcement Review Board of Alberta overturned a Presiding Officer’s decision at a disciplinary hearing to terminate the employment of a constable who had admitted to 8 counts of misconduct. The Board held that the Presiding Officer’s failure to give weight to the impact of the constable’s depression on his misconduct, on which a psychologist gave expert evidence, was unreasonable, and it reinstated the constable’s employment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Board erred when it failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard to the Presiding Officer’s decision. The Board substituted its own decision for a reasonable decision of the Presiding Officer.

28. January 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Enforcement Review Board – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Camrose (City) Police Service v. MacDonald, [2013] A.J. No. 1333, 2013 ABCA 422, Alberta Court of ...