The court found that the Minister of Learning had acted outside his jurisdiction in refusing to refer two notices of appeal from the Appellants, relating to their teaching positions, to a Board of Reference

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Employment contracts – Appeal process – Ministerial powers – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Statutory powers – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Mandamus Coulthard v. Alberta (Minister of Learning), [2004] A.J. No. 1586, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 2, 2004, Moreau J. The two ...

The court dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court which had held that the Respondent Ontario Energy Board’s Gas Distribution Access Rule came within the Board’s jurisdiction and that the Board had followed the process required by its enabling Act in issuing the Rule

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Distribution – Powers under legislation – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Ontario (Energy Board), [2005] O.J. No. 33, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, M.A. Catzman, D.H. ...

The administrative penalty of $25,000.00 imposed on the Appellant was not in the circumstances unreasonable and the Appellant’s appeal was therefore dismissed

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Hogan v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2005] B.C.J. No. 131, British Columbia Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, Finch C.J.B.C., Prowse and Levine JJ.A. The British Columbia Securities Commission ...

The British Columbia Human Rights Code creates “personal” rights and such rights abate on the death of the person whose human rights have allegedly been breached. The Tribunal therefore did not have statutory jurisdiction to hear matters in such circumstances.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Death of complainant – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia v. Goodwin, [2005] B.C.J. No. 193, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 4, 2005, Cohen J. The Petitioner, the Province of British Columbia (the “Province”), sought ...

With one exception, the decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) to disclose confidential third party records pertaining to various complainants was confirmed

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial review – Disclosure of third party records – Relevance of information disclosed – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Au, [2005] O.J. No. 234, Ontario ...

The Appellant, Dr. D, appealed to the Ontario Superior Court from the decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) whereby the Committee found Dr. D. to have engaged in professional misconduct in relation to his care and treatment of three terminally ill cancer patients. The Appellant also appealed the consequent decision to impose the penalty of revocation. The appeals against both the convictions and the penalty were dismissed.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Double jeopardy – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Devgan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, ...

A panel of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) found that the Respondent Donnini had engaged in unlawful insider trading contrary to section 76(1) of the Ontario Securities Act. The Commission suspended Donnini’s registration as a securities trader for 15 years and ordered him to pay investigation and hearing costs of $186,000. Donnini appealed all aspects of the Commissioner’s order. A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from liability, but allowed the appeal in respect of the sanctions imposed on Donnini and the award of costs. The Divisional Court reduced Donnini’s suspension from 15 to 4 years and directed the Commission to reconsider its costs award by following specific procedural steps. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commission’s findings on liability and sanction but remitted the matter of costs for the Commission’s reconsideration.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Costs – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Donnini v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 240, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, M. Rosenberg, M.J. Moldaver and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A. In February ...

An employee’s claim against her former employer under the Ontario Pay Equity Act was barred by virtue of the release and settlement executed by the employee upon her termination

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Settlements – Releases – Validity – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Bucyrus Blades of Canada Ltd. v. McKinley, [2005] O.J. No. 231, Ontario Superior Court ...

Applications for judicial review were brought on three issues: (1) is the Copyright Act section imposing levies on recordable media using for copying music constitutional or is this set of levies actually a system of taxation? (2) is the zero-rating program, under which certain groups of purchasers of recordable media are excused from paying the private copying levies permissible, and should it be taken into account when the Canadian Private Copying Collective (“CPCC”) sets levies? and (3) are MP3 players and/or their embedded memory properly subject to levies under the Act? The Court of Appeal dismissed the first two applications for judicial review and allowed the third, finding that the Act did not contain authority for the imposition of levies on MP3 player embedded memory

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Intellectual property – Copyright – Levies and taxes – Recorded music – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Copyright Board – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Canada (Canadian Private Copying Collective) v. Canadian Storage Media Alliance, [2004] F.C.J. No 2115, Federal Court of Appeal, December ...

An employer (“Simms”) was unsuccessful in appealing the determination of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Appeals Tribunal (the “Appeals Tribunal”) that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) had not set its rates higher than the rate authorized by the Commission’s own policy at the time

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Assessment rates to employers – Policies – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness T. S. Simms & Co. v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2004] N.B.J. No. 469, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, December 9, 2004, Drapeau C.J.N.B., Ryan ...