The Court refused the applicant’s leave to appeal the Respondent Commission’s interlocutory ruling and the Commission was entitled to proceed against the Applicant, notwithstanding that the CDNX exchange had imposed penalties on him in respect of the same underlying conduct. The Applicant’s other grounds of appeal were deemed premature, as the Court lacked a factual basis for granting appeal.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Stay of proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Delay – Abuse of process – Judicial review – Appeals and leave to appeal – Jurisdiction Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 727, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 24 2006, ...

The Chief of Police appealed from a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (“OCCPS”) reinstating a police officer (“Kelly”) where the Court found that the OCCPS articulated and applied the appropriate standard of review of reasonableness when overturning the decision of a Hearing Officer to terminate Kelly

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civilian Commission on Police Services – Hearings – Evidence – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Toronto (City) Police Service v. Kelly, [2006] O.J. No. 1758, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 2, 2006, J.D. Carnwath, ...

A health authority terminating the Professional Services Contract of a physician had the duty to act fairly which included the right of the physician to know why his services were not satisfactory, reasons why disciplinary action was contemplated and why the termination was being considered. In addition, the physician should have been given the opportunity to be heard. The duty of fairness did not form part of employment law but stemmed from the fact that the employer is a public body whose powers are derived from statute and must be exercised according to the rules of administrative law.

23. May 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Hearings – Judicial review – Public body – Procedural requirements and fairness Shaikh v. Regional Health Authority 7, [2005] N.B.J. No. 581, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, December 7, 2005, T.W. Riordon J. The applicant ...

An Application to quash an interim Order made by the Respondent Human Rights Tribunal requiring the Applicants to call as witnesses persons whom the Applicants did not wish to call and to produce “will-say” statements from those persons was allowed. The Tribunal’s Order was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness to the Applicants and, potentially, to the witnesses and was therefore set aside. Natural justice and procedural fairness required that the parties be free to conduct their own cases.

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Hearings – Compellability of witness – Judicial review – Witnesses – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2006] O.J. No. 50, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ...

An application for judicial review with respect to issues relating to an ongoing disciplinary hearing under the Alberta Police Act was dismissed on the basis of prematurity

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Pending hearings – Discretion of court to interfere – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Remedies – Availability Smyth v. Edmonton (City) Police Service, [2005] A.J. No. 1216, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, September 6, 2005, Lefsrud J. The ...

The purported revocation of the Respondents’ motor vehicle dealer licences by the Registrar under the Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was invalid as the revocation was made without giving the dealers a right to a hearing, which right was absolute under section 7 of the Act

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Compliance with legislation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Motor Vehicle Dealers – Hearings – Right to hearing Amerato v. Ontario (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Registrar), [2005] O.J. No. 3713, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 8, 2005, K.N. Feldman, E.E. Gillese and H.S. LaForme JJ.A. An appeal was ...

A Hearing Officer stayed a disciplinary hearing under the Ontario Police Services Act on the basis that the hearing would constitute an abuse of process after the accused police officer had been acquitted on criminal charges arising from the same conduct that triggered the hearing. This decision was quashed on judicial review as the court found that proceeding with the disciplinary hearing would not constitute an abuse of process.

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Criminal charges – Evidence – Hearings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Abuse of process – Test – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – Standard of review – Correctness Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Service v. Watson, [2005] O.J. No. 3525, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, August 18, ...

A dentist (“Dr. Hover”) was unsuccessful in his appeal from a decision of the Alberta Dental Association upholding a finding of professional misconduct, including a finding that he had failed to produce his records to them without justification

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Failure to produce records – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence –  Of administrative tribunals – Dental Association Hover v. Alberta Dental Association, [2005] A.J. No. 1254, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 3, 2005, Conrad, Picard and ...

The Court dismissed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s appeal of a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the Appeals Commission. The privative clause and the statutory appeal provision limited the right of appeal from a decision by the Appeals Commission to pure questions of law. The reviewing judge did not err in finding that the Appeals Commission decision could rely on new medical evidence since strict rules of evidence did not apply to a hearing.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Procedural fairness – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Hearings – Rules of evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Appeals Commission, [2005] A.J. No. ...

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the “LCBO”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court overturning the decision of an Administrative Tribunal refusing to issue a witness summons requested by a liquor licensee, Lifford Wine Agencies (“Lifford”), on a motion to stay a hearing before the Tribunal in which the possible revocation of Lifford’s licence was at issue. Lifford asserted that its right to a fair hearing was irreparably compromised by interference with witnesses it proposed to call to give evidence in support of its defence to allegations that it violated provisions of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act and applied for a motion to stay the hearing. During an adjournment in the stay motion, the LCBO engaged the services of a private investigator. The investigator interviewed most of the witnesses summoned by Lifford. Lifford sought the issuance of a summons to require the investigator to provide evidence before the Tribunal on the stay motion and to produce transcripts or other recordings of the interviews. The Tribunal declined to issue a summons on the basis that the investigator’s proposed evidence was irrelevant to the subject matter of the stay motion. On judicial review, the Divisional Court overturned the ruling and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Permits & licences – Stay of proceedings – Appeals – Hearings – Judicial review application – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witness tampering – Natural justice – Evidence – Privilege Ontario (Liquor Control Board) v. Lifford Wine Agencies, [2005] O.J. No. 3042, Ontario ...