The Appellant Rault successfully appealed the penalty decision made by the Respondent Law Society’s Discipline Committee. The Committee erred in failing to adequately consider the joint submission on penalty and the Court of Appeal substituted the penalty suggested in the joint submission.

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and Suspensions – Judicial review – Self-governing professions – Powers of Disciplinary Committee – Joint submissions Rault v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, [2009] S.J. No. 436, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, July 15, 2009, G.R. Jackson, G.A. ...

The Court dismissed an application for a declaration that a complaint received by the Institute of Chartered Accountants (the “Institute”) related to matters outside of its jurisdiction on the grounds that allowing judicial review at this stage would amount to a collateral attack on the discipline hearing decision. As well, there was inordinate delay which was the fault of the applicant. In the intervening 6 year period between the time the application was commenced and set down for hearing, the applicant had fully participated in a discipline hearing where he was found guilty of unprofessional conduct and unsuccessfully appealed the Discipline Tribunal’s decision.

28. October 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Institute of Chartered Accountants – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Investigations – Judicial review – Delay – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Declaratory relief Curda v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, [2008] A.J. No. 800, 2008 ABQB 443, ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...

A dentist (“Violette”), applied for judicial review of the decision of the New Brunswick Dental Society, in which the Society ordered that Violette be prohibited from treating patients with TMJ disorder and from practising orthodontics. The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application, holding that the Court should not review the decision of the Discipline Committee when the Applicant had available other avenues of review which he had not pursued.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Judicial review – Self-governing professions Violette v. New Brunswick Dental Society, [2003] N.B.J. No. 129, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 26, 2003, Garnett J. Violette argued that the Board did not have legal training, and so he should not have to pursue his option ...

The Appellant was charged with professional misconduct after publicly demonstrating with a group outside of the Planned Parenthood Sexual Health Centre in Regina. Prior to the hearing, the applicant sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Discipline Committee from proceeding with the hearing into his conduct on the grounds that his Charter rights would be infringed if the Discipline Committee determined that whatever occurred while he was picketing amounted to professional misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The court concluded that the Act provides an alternative remedy with rights of appeal for the member being disciplined and that the alternative remedy was adequate. The applicant’s application was dismissed in its entirety and the Association was awarded costs.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Charter of Rights – Remedies – Alternative remedies – Self-governing professions – Statutory provisions Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Assn. of Licensed Practical Nurses, [2003] S.J. No. 54, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 7, 2003, Gunn J. The applicant was a member of the ...