The Court ordered a re-hearing by the Police Review Board of a complaint against a police officer on the grounds that the Board had permitted inappropriate cross-examination of the Complainant, had failed to give adequate reasons, and had failed to assist the unrepresented Complainant

Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Unrepresented complainant – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Kelly v. Nova Scotia (Police Commission), [2005] N.S.J. No. 284, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, June 2, 2005, F.C. Edwards ...

The appellants were charged with three summary conviction offences relating to tax evasion under the Excise Tax Act. Before trial, the Crown refused to produce or disclose 55 items of information. Among those items were two items revealing the identity of other taxpayers, which the Crown maintained constituted confidential information, and three legal opinions for which the Crown claimed solicitor-client privilege. The trial judge ordered production of these items, a decision that was overturned on judicial review. The appeal of the judicial review was dismissed.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Disclosure of documents – Jurisdiction – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Chapelstone Developments Inc. v. Canada, [2004] N.B.J. No. 450, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, December 2, 2004, Turnbull, Robertson and Richard JJ.A. The trial judge ordered production of these five items, but failed to give reasons for ...

In weighing the merits of the Appellants’ rezoning requests, the Defendant municipality was discharging a duty delegated to it by the legislature. The Defendant was bound to exercise the powers conferred upon it fairly, in good faith and with a view to the public interest. The Defendant did not fulfil its duty of procedural fairness in refusing two rezoning applications brought by the Appellants as it gave no reasons for its denial. In refusing to justify its decision, the Defendant breached its duty of procedural fairness.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Appeals – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Statutory provisions – Public interest – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Charter of Rights – Discrimination Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] S.C.J. No. 45, Supreme ...

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice quashed decisions of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (the “Ministry”) relating to applications for funding by parents of children with disabilities including Autism Spectrum Disorder. The court found that the process employed by the Ministry to consider the proposals at issue fell short of the procedural fairness mandated by law.

Administrative law – Government – Funding of programs – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Nieberg (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario (Minister of Community Family and Children’s Services), [2004] O.J. No. 1135, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 18, 2004, Benotto, Dunn and McCombs JJ. Jared ...

An automotive sales and service business (“White Bear”) went into receivership and several of the company’s terminated employees filed complaints with the Labour Services offices of the Government of the Northwest Territories. The employees claimed wages owed and related benefits. An officer of the Labour Standards Board (the “Board”) examined their claims and issued certificates determining the amounts owing and declared that the employees were entitled to wage claims from the officers and directors of White Bear, pursuant to section 62 of the Labour Standards Act. The directors of White Bear appealed the ruling. The Board confirmed the certificates of the officer. The directors then unsuccessfully appealed those confirmations to the Northwest Territories Supreme Court.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour Relations Board – Employment standards – Termination of employment – Termination package – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Buist v. Northwest Territories (Labour Standards Board), [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 30, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, May 30, 2003, O’Connor J. The Appellants ...

An employee of the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s was unsuccessful in her application to set aside the decision of the Human Rights Commission not to refer her complaint to a board of inquiry. The Court held that the Commission exercised its administrative screening function in a reasonable manner. The legislative scheme in the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14 required the Court to show considerable deference to a decision of the Human Rights Commission. While it may have been preferable for the Commission to have provided fuller reasons, it was under no statutory obligation to do so. The reasons given by the Commission adequately indicated to the employee that, following a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, her complaint did not meet the Commission’s threshold level for referring the matter to a board of inquiry.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Evidence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness Spurrell v. Newfoundland (Human Rights Commission), [2003] N.J. No. 53, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, February 25, 2003, Adams J. An employee of ...

A number of adjoining landowners had successfully sought review of a Minister’s order granting an expansion of a landfill before the court. The Court of Appeal reversed the chambers judge’s decision and determined that a Minister’s order was not patently unreasonable and the failure to provide reasons in these circumstances did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Environmental hearings – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Breach of procedural fairness – Failure to provide reasons Fenske (c.o.b. Glomick Farms) v. Alberta (Minister of Environment), [2002] A.J. No. 823, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 25, 2002, Berger, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A. The Beaver Waste Management Services Commission ...