The Consumers’ Association of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. and the Manitoba Society of Seniors (the “Applicants”) applied for judicial review of an Order made by the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba (the “Board”) with respect to an ex parte Order of the Board that permitted Centra Gas Manitoba Inc. (“Centra”) to increase its natural gas rates by approximately 10% effective February 1, 2005 without any notice to or input from Centra’s customers. The court held that there was no evidence presented to the Board that supported the exceptional requirements necessary to justify of an ex parte hearing. The Board therefore should not have heard Centra’s interim application on an ex parte basis and the Applicants were entitled to an Order quashing the interim rate increase ordered by the Board following the ex parte hearing.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Rate increases – Appeals – Hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Ex parte orders – Evidence – Interpretation of legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Consumers’ Assn. of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. v. Manitoba (Public ...

A sergeant of the Regina Police Force (“Watson”) was successful in obtaining an order quashing a disciplinary decision on the basis that there was inordinate delay by the Saskatchewan Police Commission (the “Commission”) in responding to Watson’s request for permission to appeal the decision

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Appeals – Unreasonable delay – Test – Judicial review – Natural justice – Delay – Privative clauses Watson v. Saskatchewan (Police Commission), [2005] S.J. No. 407, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, June 16, 2005, Hunter J. On December 18, 1999, ...

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Edmonton Journal Group (the “Media Intervenors”) were successful in their appeal from the chambers judge’s decision to quash the decision of an inquiry judge granting “interested person” status to the media in a fatality inquiry. The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge did not appropriately apply the reasonableness standard in reviewing the inquiry judge’s decision and instead substituted his own opinion for that of the inquiry judge.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Media access to hearings – Hearings – In camera hearings – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Certiorari Wasylyshen v. Wenden (Appeal by Canadian Broadcasting Corp.), [2005] A.J. No. 710, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 1, ...

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

23. August 2005 0
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 Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Institute’s Appeal Tribunal which had decided to refer two allegations of unprofessional conduct to the Discipline Tribunal Roster Chair and not to allow the Appellant to make representations to the Appeal Tribunal. The Court held that, under the Act, it was premature for the Court to hear an appeal at this stage of the proceedings.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Natural justice – Appeal process – Hearings – Conduct of hearings Partington v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, [2005] A.J. No. 787, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 4, 2005, Russell and Picard JJ.A. and Ouellette J. The Appellant was a Chartered Accountant ...

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers acted arbitrarily and breached principles of natural justice and fairness in first scheduling a hearing during a time when it knew the Respondent would be out of the country and, second, in then refusing an adjournment of the hearing

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Hearings – Judicial review – Adjournment of hearing application – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Public interest Kalin v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2005] O.J. No. 2097, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 24, 2005, G.D. Lane, P.H. Howden and A.M. ...

A freedom of information request led to a consideration of how the scope of standing of a tribunal in a judicial review of its own decision should be determined

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Standing in judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hearings – Parties – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] O.J. No. 1426, Ontario Court of Appeal, April 18, 2005, R.R. McMurtry C.J.O., S.T. Goudge ...

The Ontario Labour Relations Board did not err in consolidating and hearing together the reprisal complaint of the Respondent against his former employer at the same time as the employer’s motion for contempt. The Respondent was not denied a fair hearing as a result of both matters being heard together.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Jurisdiction – Hearings – Consolidation – Contempt – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence McNaught v. Toronto Transit Commission, [2005] O.J. No. 224, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 27, 2005, J.M. Simmons, E.E. Gillese JJ.A. and P.C. Hennessy J. (ad hoc) ...

Professional figure skating coaches (the “Patersons”) brought an application for judicial review of the procedure adopted by Skate Canada which had commenced an investigation into complaints against the Patersons alleging dishonesty, fraudulent misconduct and personal harassment. The court found that the procedures put into place by Skate Canada did not meet the criteria of due process in that the Patersons would not be allowed to cross-examine the complainants. The court granted an order prohibiting Skate Canada from proceeding with the charges against the Patersons until procedures were in place to guarantee fairness.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Jurisdiction of tribunal Paterson v Skate Canada, [2004] A.J. No. 1542, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 22, 2004, Moen J. The Patersons were professional figure skating coaches who moved to Grande ...

The Winnipeg Free Press (the “Free Press”) successfully challenged the decision of an arbitrator denying public access to the hearing of a grievance filed by officers of the Winnipeg police service (“WPS”). The court found that there was no evidentiary foundation for the arbitrator’s conclusion that “informant evidence” would form an integral part of the hearing and, therefore, the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering that the hearing be held in camera.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Labour law – Arbitration – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – In camera hearings – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Jurisdiction – Public interest Winnipeg Free Press v. Winnipeg (City), [2004] M.J. ...