After eight years, an articled student is given the right to be enrolled by the Law Society of British Columbia (“LawSoc”) with conditions

28. January 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Admission to profession – Hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Credibility – Compliance with legislation – Failure to provide adequate reasons Mohan v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2487, 2013 BCCA 489, British Columbia Court of Appeal, ...

A veterinarian appealed a decision of the Respondent Association, which had found him guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately trapping, handling, and marketing white-tailed deer. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Association’s decision, on the basis that it had admitted into evidence a videotaped statement without a correct consideration of the applicable principles, contrary to specific provisions in the Wildlife Act and in breach of the discipline committee’s duty of fairness.

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Hearsay evidence – admissibility – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Witnesses – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Standard of review – Correctness ...

The Appellant appealed from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal, finding that he had violated provisions of the Human Rights Code when he terminated the employment of two Complainants. The Tribunal had ordered the Appellant to pay damages to the Complainants and also made three “public interest orders”. The Court varied the compensation awards and set aside the public interest orders, finding that they were unsupported by any reasons.

28. August 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Similar fact evidence – admissibility – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Natural justice Papa Joe’s Pizza v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2007] O.J. No. 2499, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 26, 2007, D.R. ...

The Court allowed, in part, an appeal by the Law Society from an order of the Appeal Panel of the Law Society setting aside decisions of a Hearing Panel of the Discipline Committee

22. May 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Interpretation of Evidence – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Witnesses – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – ...

The court held that the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses (the “Council”) was unreasonable in its approach to the assessment of the Respondent’s credibility and in its application of the standard of proof, holding that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to safely sustain two of the complaints against the Appellant Nurse. However, the Council’s decision that the Nurse failed to maintain the ethical standards of practice of the profession was rationally supported by the evidence and it was not shown to be unreasonable.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Gillis v. Council for Licensed Practical Nurses, [2004] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 20, 2004, ...

The appellant teacher unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Hearing Panel of the disciplinary committee of the British Columbia College of Teachers (“BCCT”) finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming on the grounds that he made discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals in a number of published writings. The appellant also unsuccessfully appealed the penalty of the one-month suspension of his teaching certificate.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression Kempling v. British Columbia College ...

On judicial review, the applicant, Siksika Nation (“Siksika”), sought to quash the decision of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (the “Board”) granting a liquor licence to the respondent, Walji Holdings Limited (“Walji”) on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and breached the principles of natural justice. The Court, in light of the applicable law and the strict standard of review, found that the decision to grant the licence was not patently unreasonable and therefore did not warrant judicial intervention. However, the Court did note that the Alberta gaming and liquor legislation was deficient in failing to enumerate public interest as a consideration in granting licences but, being constrained by the wording of the legislation, had to dismiss the application for judicial review.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Powers under legislation – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Siksika Nation v. Walji ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...