Court of Appeal reviews the Standard of proof applicable to a finding of misconduct under Ontario Police Services Act

The Appellant, Constable Jacobs, was found guilty of professional misconduct under the Police Services Act. He argued the wrong standard of proof was applied but the finding was upheld by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and the Ontario Divisional Court. The Ontario Court of Appeal then allowed his appeal. Administrative law – Compliance with legislation ...

Applicant applied for judicial review to determine whether the Ontario Civilian Police Commission’s (“OCPC”) erred in law with respect to the standard of proof applicable to police discipline matters

21. August 2015 0
The applicant constable contested the standard of proof under the Police Services Act, arguing the applicable standard of proof was “clear and convincing evidence,” rather than balance of probabilities. Administrative law – Compliance with legislation – Conduct unbecoming – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Judicial Review – Police – Police ...

The applicant constable contested the standard of proof under the Police Services Act, arguing the applicable standard of proof was “clear and convincing evidence,” rather than balance of probabilities

28. July 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Police – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of proof Jacobs v. Ottawa (City) Police Service, [2015] O.J. No. 2689, 2015 ONSC 2240, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 27, 2015, P.T. Matlow, T.R. ...

Appeal from decision of Licence Appeal Tribunal to revoke liquor licence of strip club operated by Hells Angels member

27. January 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Alcohol and Gaming Commission – Permits and licences – Revocation – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of proof – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Failure to provide reasons 751809 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Famous Flesh Gordon’s) v. Ontario (Registrar, Alcohol and ...

The Applicant, Ms. Fitzpatrick, a physiotherapist, was disciplined by the Discipline Committee of the Respondent, Alberta College of Physical Therapists. Ms. Fitzpatrick unsuccessfully appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision to the Council of the College. Ms. Fitzpatrick then succeeded, in part, in appealing the Council’s decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physical Therapists – Physical Therapists – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of proof – Failure to provide reasons Fitzpatrick v. Alberta College of Physical Therapists, [2012] A.J. No. 680, 2012 ABCA 207, Alberta Court of Appeal, June ...

The Appellant (“Merck”) unsuccessfully appealed from a Federal Court of Appeal decision relating to an Access to Information Act request. The request related to certain documents submitted by Merck to the Respondent, Health Canada, when it sought approval to market the drugs.

Administrative Law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Government institution – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Public bodies – Disclosure – Third parties – Notice – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of proof Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v Canada (Health), [2012] S.C.J. No. 3, 2012 SCC 3, ...

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (“Association”) applied for judicial review of the decision of the Copyright Board (“Board”) with respect to the appropriate royalty rate payable under a tariff regarding permanent downloads, limited downloads and on-demand streaming. Specifically, the Association alleged that the Board applied the wrong standard of proof in relation to the determination of certain costs in the digital music business, that it erred in accepting inadmissible expert evidence, that it calculated the royalty rate on a faulty basis and that it failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The court dismissed the Association’s application. The court found that there was no basis in procedural fairness to challenge the manner in which the Board dealt with its evidence.

22. February 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Copyright Board – Intellectual property – Copyright – Recorded music – Regulation of rates – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of proof – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Canadian Recording Industry Assn. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, ...

The Appellant family physician appealed the Respondent College’s disciplinary decision. The College’s decision was upheld except with respect to the penalty imposed against him.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Investigations – Delay – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of proof Wachtler v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, ...

The appeal by the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) from a decision of the Appeal Panel which reversed the Hearing Panel’s decision refusing to reinstate a former judge’s membership in the Law Society was dismissed where the Court agreed with the Appeal Panel that the Hearing Panel’s finding as to the appropriate standard of proof was incorrect and undermined the Hearing Panel’s decision to such an extent that its conclusions could not stand

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Judges – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Barristers and solicitors – Restoration of membership – Public interest – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of proof Law Society of Upper Canada v. Evans, [2008] O.J. ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, which had granted leave to appeal the decisions of two Directors of the Ministry of the Environment granting Certificates of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act. The Tribunal’s decision was reasonable in that there was a proper basis for the Tribunal’s finding that the standard of proof for leave to appeal the Directors’ decision was less than a balance of probabilities. In addition, the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable in that there was a proper basis for the Tribunal to grant leave to appeal.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Environmental Review Board – Ministerial decisions – Environmental issues – Judicial review – Appeals – Leave to appeal – Evidence – Standard of proof – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environmental Review Tribunal), [2008] O.J. No., 2460, ...