The Court allowed the appeal of a company from a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of Parkland County regarding a stop order issued to the appellant for unauthorized storage of pipe on its land. Unbeknownst to the appellant, the County’s Manager of Planning and Development Services remained in the hearing room while the Board deliberated and decided the appeal, thereby giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

27. May 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Subdivision and Development Appeal Board – Municipalities – By-laws – Judicial review – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Standard of review – Correctness 506221 Alberta Ltd. v. Parkland (County), [2008] A.J. No. 261, Alberta Court of ...

The applicant physician sought to quash a decision of the respondent College to proceed to a disciplinary hearing and to prohibit such a hearing when allegedly, the respondent’s decision not to proceed to hearing allowed by the governing statute had already been made. The applicant argued that the statutory power had been exhausted and there is no statutory authority to review or reconsider that decision. The court held that there was never an unconditional and final direction by the investigation chair that no further action be taken, and dismissed the application.

27. May 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Statutory powers – Investigations – Hearings Ferrari v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2008] A.J. No. 262, Alberta’s Court of Queens Bench, March 10, 2008, Foster, J. ...

The Court quashed a decision of the Appeals Committee of the respondent College refusing to readmit the applicant. The Committee’s reasons were inadequate and amounted to a breach of procedural fairness, and were so sparse as to render the decision unreasonable on the merits.

26. February 2008 0
Administrative law – Universities and colleges – Students – Admissions – Student discipline – Hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Zeliony v. Red River College, [2007] M.J. No. 470, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, December 11, 2007, G.D. Joyal J. ...

A cardiologist (“Dr. Rosenhek”) was successful in establishing an entitlement to damages arising out of a denial of natural justice in the revocation of his hospital privileges

22. January 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Hearing de novo – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence – Damages Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital, [2007] O.J. No. 4486, Ontario Superior Court ...

The appeal by the New Brunswick Real Estate Association (the “Association”) from a judge’s decision setting aside a decision of the Discipline Committee was allowed where the Court found that the judge had erred in concluding that the Committee’s policy of addressing the merits of the complaints and possible penalties in one hearing rendered the hearing process biased

23. October 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Real estate agents – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Judicial review – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness New Brunswick Real Estate Assn. v. Moore, [2007] N.B.J. No. 311, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, August 9, 2007, ...

The Ontario Racing Commission (the “Commission”) was successful in its appeal from the Divisional Court’s Judicial Review decision overturning the Commission’s earlier decision finding Austin guilty of having provided an improper (cold) urine sample

23. October 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Drivers – Testing for illegal substances – Horse racers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Hearings – Evidence – Judicial review – Bias Austin v. Ontario (Racing Commission), [2007] O.J. No. 3249, Ontario Court of Appeal, August 30, 2007, M. Rosenberg, ...

The court declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...

An appeal by Roeder from the dismissal of his action as an abuse of process was dismissed. There is no cause of action for breach of the rules of procedural fairness. The proper remedy for “process allegations” is judicial review.

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Hearings – Disclosure – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Abuse of process – Appeals – Remedies – Alternative remedies Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2007] B.C.J. No. 501, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 14, ...

An appeal by Roeder from the dismissal of his action as an abuse of process was dismissed. There is no cause of action for breach of the rules of procedural fairness. The proper remedy for “process allegations” is judicial review.

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Hearings – Disclosure – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Abuse of process – Appeals – Remedies – Alternative remedies Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2007] B.C.J. No. 501, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 14, ...

The appeal by a nurse (Tomaszewska) of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario finding that she had committed acts of professional misconduct was dismissed where the Court held that Tomaszewska had not been denied procedural fairness in the hearing and the penalty was not patently unreasonable

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Disclosure – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Fresh evidence – admissibility Tomaszewska v. College of Nurses of Ontario, [2007] O.J. No. 1731, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 3, ...