The Court dismissed a teacher’s application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Teachers awarding costs against the teacher for a disciplinary hearing. The Court held that the decision to award costs against the teacher may have marked a change in the College’s attitude concerning costs, but that the College was entitled to modify its position concerning collection of costs.

22. May 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Regulatory powers of tribunals – Costs – Right to award costs – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Adolphe v. British Columbia College of ...

The Sunshine Coast Conservation Association (“SCCA”) complained to the Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals (“ABCFP”) about the conduct of a registered professional forester (“RPF”). The ABCFP Registrar rejected the complaint on the basis that even if the allegations were proven, they did not involve a breach of the Foresters Act or the applicable bylaws or resolutions of the ABCFP.

24. April 2007 0
Administrative law – Forest professionals – Disciplinary proceedings – Code of ethics – Natural resources – Environmental issues – Forest practices – Wildlife habitat – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Correctness Sunshine Coast Conservation Association v. Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals, [2007] B.C.J. No. 281, ...

A successful appeal was brought by residents of an apartment building that was ordered demolished despite a Letter of Request filed by the Appellants requesting an adjournment because their legal counsel could not attend at the Council meeting where the determination was made

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Landlord and tenant – Conduct of tenant – By-laws – Practice and procedure – Administrative tribunals – Adjournment – Failure to provide reasons – Appeals – Disclosure – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Remedies – Alternative remedies Markwart v. Prince Albert (City), ...

The City’s Appeal Committee overturned a Variance Order that allowed the Applicant to subdivide his property. An application for judicial review of this decision was dismissed. The Court held that the Appeal Committee did not err in its interpretation of the criteria set out in section 247(3) of the City of Winnipeg Charter. No manifest injustice occurred and the decision was not arbitrary, oppressive or improper. The Appeal Committee did not act in bad faith and there was no breach of natural justice.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal Appeal Committee – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Rohs v. Winnipeg (City), [2006] M.J. No. 275, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, July 6, 2006, McCawley J. The Applicant ...

A former covert operative in Canada for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (“Miller”) was unsuccessful on her application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the “Minister”), which concurred in the recommendation of the Canada Border Services Agency that Miller should not be granted relief from her inadmissibility pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provision holding that a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for engaging in an act of espionage or an act or subversion against a democratic government, institution or process, as they are understood in Canada

24. October 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Border Service Agency – Minister of Public Safety – Foreign nationals – Espionage – Deportation orders – Immigration – Ministerial decisions – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Miller v. Canada (Solicitor ...

An order of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (the “Superintendent”) removing Ripudaman Singh Malik (“Malik”) as a director of the Khalsa Credit Union was set aside where the Court found the Superintendent was in breach of the rules of procedural fairness by failing to provide Malik with notice and an opportunity to be heard

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Financial Institutions Commission – Director of corporation – Removal – Notice – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Malik v. British Columbia (Financial Institutions Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 999, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 5, 2006, Wedge J. On November 16, 2005, ...

Rankin and three other professional curlers were successful in their application for judicial review of the decisions of the Review Committee and the Appeal Committee of the Alberta Curling Federation (“ACF”). The Court held that the sanctions imposed were patently unreasonable and unsupported by reasons and should be set aside.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Curling Federation – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspension – Failure to provide reasons – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Procedural requirements and fairness Rankin v. Alberta Curling Federation Appeals Committee, [2005] A.J. No. 1759, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 16, 2005, Germain J. Curling ...

The Court affirmed, in part, an Order of the Respondent Committee requiring a physician to repay professional fees pursuant to the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Billing matters – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Wong v. Joint Medical Professional Review Committee, [2005] S.J. No. 690, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, November 15, 2005, Ball J. The Appellant was a family physician who ...

A decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) to institute an inquiry into a complaint after an Investigator appointed by the Commission recommended dismissal of the complaint did not attract the duty of procedural fairness to provide written reasons. In certain circumstances, the duty of procedural fairness requires the provision of a written explanation of a decision where the decision has important significance for the individual and where there is a statutory right of appeal. This was not such a case.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Investigations – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Durrer, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1321, Federal Court, August 8, ...

A family physician (“Dr. Anstead”) appealed an order of the Joint Medical Professional Review Committee (the “Committee”) requiring him to repay $15,746.72 in professional fees. The Court held that the reasons provided by the Committee were insufficient and referred the matter back to the Committee with a direction to provide supporting reasons for its decision.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Billing matters – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Failure to provide reasons – Test – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Anstead v. Joint Medical Professional Review Committee, [2005] S.J. No. 373, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...