Administrative tribunals do not have to consider and comment upon every issue raised by the parties in their reasons. For reviewing courts, the issue remains whether the decision, viewed as a whole in the context of the record, is reasonable.

27. December 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc., [2012] S.C.J. No. 65, 2012 SCC 65, Supreme Court of Canada, ...

A 54 year old man applied for judicial review of a decision of the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, which had upheld the decision of the Minister of Social Development denying him a ‘persons with disabilities’ designation. His petition was dismissed.

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal – Persons with disabilities – Severe – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Garbutt v. British Columbia (Minister of Social Development), [2012] B.C.J. No. 1805, 2012 ...

The Applicant, Ms. Fitzpatrick, a physiotherapist, was disciplined by the Discipline Committee of the Respondent, Alberta College of Physical Therapists. Ms. Fitzpatrick unsuccessfully appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision to the Council of the College. Ms. Fitzpatrick then succeeded, in part, in appealing the Council’s decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physical Therapists – Physical Therapists – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of proof – Failure to provide reasons Fitzpatrick v. Alberta College of Physical Therapists, [2012] A.J. No. 680, 2012 ABCA 207, Alberta Court of Appeal, June ...

In considering an application for registration and assessing whether an applicant met substantially equivalent registration requirements, the accreditation committee of the Ontario College of Teachers was required to provide substantive and tenable reasons for its decision

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Teachers – Permits and licences – Training requirements – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons Saba v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2012] O.J. No. 1958, 2012 ONSC 1734, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 16, 2012, K.E. Swinton, P.C. Hennessy and A.H. ...

The Court of Appeal dismissed the University of Calgary’s appeal from a judicial review decision quashing disciplinary findings and sanctions against students found by the University to have conducted non-academic misconduct by posting comments about their professor on a Facebook wall. While the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the Chambers judge’s decision to quash the Review Committee’s decision, the Court issued three separate concurring judgments, with the lead judgment revisiting the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1990 decision in McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229, and concluding that McKinney does not always preclude the application of the Charter to universities. In this circumstance, the lead judgment found that the Charter applied to university discipline and the students’ rights had been breached. The other two concurring judgments found it unnecessary to analyze the applicability of the Charter.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Student discipline – Internet – Social media – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness ...

The decision of the Senate to suspend a university student for misconduct was set aside for lack of procedural fairness and an order was made to implement the Senate Committee’s recommendation allowing the student’s appeal

22. May 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Student discipline – Investigations – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Dunne v. Memorial University of Newfoundland, [2012] N.J. No. 89, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, March 8, 2012, A.E. Faour J. Dunne, a student at ...

The appeal by a union from a decision overturning a Chambers judge’s decision to set aside an arbitrator’s decision due to insufficient reasons was dismissed where the Court found that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and the reasons allowed a reviewing Court to understand why the tribunal had made its decision and permitted it to determine whether the conclusion was within the range of acceptable outcomes

25. January 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Arbitration Board – Labour law – Collective agreements – Arbitration – Benefits – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union ...

The Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the BC Securities Commission after it failed to provide an explanation for why its decision to limit the appellant’s ability to trade securities was in the best interests of the public

27. December 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Public interest – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Failure to provide reasons – Limitations McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2011] B.C.J. No. 2124, 2011 BCCA 455, British Columbia ...

The Court ordered that a de novo hearing by the Director of Companies (Manitoba) involving fresh evidence was required for accountability and for justice to be seen to be done and further that no costs should be ordered against either the Director or the respondent either by the Court of Appeal or the lower court

25. October 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Director of Companies Office – Business names – Hearings – Hearing de novo – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Costs Brian Neil Friesen Dental Corp. v. Director of Companies (Manitoba), [2011] M.J. No. 268, 2011 MBCA 71, Manitoba Court of Appeal, August 26, 2011, ...

The Applicants, BP Canada and Inter Pipeline Fund, were granted leave to appeal a decision of the Energy Resources Conservation Board in respect of approvals it granted to a different company, Taylor Processing Inc.

27. September 2011 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Oil and gas – Contracts – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy Resources Conservation Board – Judicial review – Appeals – Failure to provide reasons – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witnesses Inter Pipeline Fund v. Alberta Energy Resources Conservation ...