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 Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim against the defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on the grounds that it was plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff had claimed damages against the College for damages caused by the alleged malpractice of a physician who was a member of the College. The plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleged that the College did not properly investigate the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the physician and that its investigation process was not transparent.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Privilege and immunity – Physicians and surgeons – Governance – Investigations – Judicial review – Disclosure – Evidence – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process Kwabanza v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2012] O.J. No. 4966, ...

The Applicant physician was partially successful in seeking a declaration from the Respondent College relating to the status of his license practice medicine in New Brunswick.

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals –  College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and Surgeons – Governance –  Licence to practice – Statutory provisions – Interpretation – Judicial review  –  Compliance with legislation Houshmand v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2012] N.B.J. No. 324, 2012 NBQB 293, New Brunswick Court ...

A non-statutory organization that regulates the conduct of its members is not a government body and thus not subject to judicial review. The defendant Investment Regulatory Organization of Canada (“IROC”) is a voluntary industry organization recognized by the British Columbia Securities Commission as a self-regulatory organization pursuant to the Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c.418, to regulate standards of conduct within the securities industries. Its members agree to submit to its jurisdiction in relation to disciplinary matters. The plaintiff is a member of IROC and, in doing so, agreed to be bound by the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations of IROC and submit to its jurisdiction. While IROC is entitled to conduct a hearing into the professional activities of its members, such as the plaintiff, and impose a penalty if a contravention of its bylaws or member rules is proven, it is not a government body and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. Although the plaintiff commenced her proceedings by (Amended) Notice of Civil Claim, the relief sought (including asking the Court to enjoin IROC from making a decision and seeking declarations concerning the lawfulness of the conduct of an IROC hearing) was the language and substance of judicial review. The Court had no jurisdiction to allow her Amended Notice of Civil Claim to proceed.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investment Regulatory Organization of Canada – Professions – Governance – Self-governing professions – Non-statutory organizations – Powers – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Steinhoff v. Investment Regulatory Organization of Canada, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1489, 2012 BCSC 1054, British ...

The proper way to attack decisions made by administrative bodies is through judicial review. It is not permissible to circumvent this process by dressing up a review of a decision of an administrative tribunal as an application falling under the rules of civil procedure.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative  tribunals – Police Review Board – Police  –  Governance – Criminal records request – Judicial review  –  Administrative decisions –  Jurisdiction of court – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness J.N. v. Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2012] O.J. No. 2809, 2012 ONCA 428, Ontario Court of ...

The applicant, The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (the “Society”), sought an Order against the respondents, the former branch of the Society, requiring the respondents to vacate and turn over possession of all property with respect to an animal shelter located at 401 East Broadway, Sydney, Nova Scotia. The issue before the Court was whether it should grant the applicant’s motion for an interim injunction, pending a final hearing on the merits of the application, based on the tripartite test for interim injunctions.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – SPCA – Associations and clubs – Governance – Animals – Seizure and disposition of animals – Remedies – Interlocutory injunctions – Judicial review – Applications Society for the Prevention of Cruelty v Cape Breton Human Society, [2012] N.S.J. No. 164, 2012 NSSC 128, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, ...

The public law remedy of judicial review is not available to contest the removal and expulsion of a Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Port of Dalhousie, a non-profit body incorporated under the Companies Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C 13. The Port of Dalhousie is not a body that exercises statutory powers in the discharge of any regulatory or other governmental responsibilities. While it may have been incorporated to pursue some public good, it is not a creature of statute any different from any other non-profit corporation. While the functions of the corporation may serve the public interest, they are not regulatory in nature. The main function of the corporation is to conduct a business: managing the Port. The decision making power of the Port of Dalhousie is not sufficiently of a public character to be subject to the Court’s power of judicial review.

25. October 2011 0
Administrative law – Associations and clubs – Governance – Judicial review application – Availability – Public body – definition – Hearings – Remedies – Hearing de novo – Private law remedies Maltais v. Port of Dalhousie Inc., [2011] N.B.J. No. 309, 2011 NBCA 84, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, September 22, 2011, A. Deschenes, J.C.M. ...

The Respondent had commenced disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants aimed at denying their rights to hold office or participate in Association voting. The Appellants had applied for a judicial review of the proceedings which was stayed by the chambers judge pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. That decision was overturned on appeal based on the Court’s finding that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of staying the disciplinary proceedings and allowing the judicial review.

Administrative law – Associations and clubs – Governance – Disciplinary proceedings – By-laws – Elections – Voting rights – Judicial review – Applications – Jurisdiction – Stay of proceedings – Test Voorhorst v. Canadian Soccer Assn., [2011] A.J. No. 205, 2011 ABCA 74, Alberta Court of Appeal, March 4, 2011, J.E.L. Côté and M.B. Bielby ...

The Appellants, a group of farmers, successfully appealed the decision of a Federal Court Judge who dismissed their application for a judicial review and held that they did not have personal standing to bring the application. The application for judicial review related to a Ministerial directive issued by the Respondent Government, which changed the process for the elections of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Associations and clubs – Governance – Voting rights – Judicial review – Applications – Parties – Standing Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.C.J. No. 297, 2011 FCA 101, Federal Court of Appeal, March 16, 2011, Létourneau, Nadeau and ...

The Applicant, a housing co-operative, successfully argued that its decision to terminate an individual’s membership and occupancy rights was both reasonable and fair. In accordance with this finding, the court issued a Writ of Possession in favour of the housing co-operative.

Administrative law – Housing co-operative – Governance – Membership – Termination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Compliance with legislation Forestwood Co-operative Homes Inc. v. Blake, [2010] O.J. No. 678, 2010 ONSC 1179, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 22, 2010, D.G. Price J. The Applicant, Forestwood Co-operative Homes ...