Three graduates of non-Canadian dentistry schools (the “Applicants”) were unsuccessful in their applications for judicial review of the decisions of the Alberta Dental Association and College and the associated Council denying their registration and licensing attempts to become dentists who could practice in Alberta

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Governance – Licence to practice – Examinations – Foreign graduates – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Dental Association and College – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Limitations Patterson v. Alberta Dental Assn. And College, [2004] A.J. No 1162, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 14, 2004, ...

The court found that the higher standard of proof applied by the Human Rights Tribunal Panel was wrong and contrary to the very essence of human rights legislation. However, in reviewing all of the evidence, the court held that the conclusion of the Panel was correct. The facts established by the Applicant did not amount to discrimination against the Applicant by the employer on the basis of race, colour, ancestry or place of origin with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Bobb v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2004] A.J. No. 1117, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 12, 2004, Verville J. The Applicant filed a complaint with the Human Rights ...

The Minister’s decision not to order an environmental impact assessment with respect to the Appellant’s proposal to enlarge a ski resort was found to be patently unreasonable and quashed. The matter was ordered to be returned to the Director for determination in accordance with the legislation.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Environmental issues – Environmental impact assessment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition v. Flett, [2004] A.J. No. 1128, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, July 2, 2004, Kenny J. The Applicant Wilderness Coalition applied for judicial ...

On an appeal from a dismissal of an application for judicial review of a series of decisions made by the City of Winnipeg in relation to the rezoning and development of a property, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge did not misapprehend either the law or the facts and exercised his discretion correctly in dismissing the application. The City had the jurisdiction to make the decisions in question and did not lose jurisdiction by the manner in which it made them.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Jurisdiction – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Statutory powers – Standard of review – Correctness Hechter v. Winnipeg (City), [2004] M.J. No. 357, Manitoba Court of Appeal, June 28, 2004, Scott C.J.M., Monnin ...

A teacher (“Fox”) appealed from the decision of the BC College of Teachers (the “College”) to proceed with a formal inquiry where the complaint by the school board which instigated the report to the College was rescinded after a grievance. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions of the Teaching Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1986, c. 449 (the “Act”) indicated that the legislature did not intend that the jurisdiction of the College would be ousted if a grievance procedure was successful.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Correctness Fox v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2004] B.C.J. No. 2322, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 8, 2004, Ehrcke J. ...

Del Bianco’s appeal from an Order of the Alberta Securities Commission was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support both the Commission’s finding that Del Bianco had traded in shares without being registered and the reasonableness of the sanctions imposed.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Securities Commission – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Del Bianco v. Alberta Securities Commission, [2004] A.J. No. 1222, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 29, 2004, Fruman and Ritter JJ.A. and Sullivan J. Del Bianco was the director of ...

The petition of a psychiatrist (“Bartman”) seeking judicial review of a decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) was dismissed where the court found that the conclusion of the Tribunal that Bartman had sexually harassed the Complainant was reasonable and well supported on the evidence

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Sexual harassment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Interpretation of Evidence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Patent unreasonableness Bartman v. N.T., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1896, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 16, 2004, Holmes J. The Complainant was Bartman’s medical office assistant ...

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. ...

The court set aside a decision of the Respondent to cancel a “final” certificate of inspection on the Applicant’s shipment of wheat after it had been shipped and sold on the basis of the inspection certificate. The Respondent had the regulatory power, which it had not exercised, to do what it had done, but the court could not give administrative practice the force of law by implying a power which the Respondent had failed to exercise by regulation.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Grain Commission – Certificate of inspection – Powers to cancel – Regulatory powers of tribunals – Functus officio – Limitations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada (Canadian Grain Commission), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1568, Federal ...

The court held that the application judge had erred by applying a standard of correctness on review of an Acting Park Superintendent’s interpretation of a park management plan and by finding that the Applicant (Respondent on appeal) was denied procedural fairness in relation to its request for use of a private road located in a provincial park. At its highest, the applicable standard for review was reasonableness, and the Superintendent’s interpretation was not unreasonable.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Park Superintendent – Road access – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Procedural requirements and fairness 2016596 Ontario Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), [2004] O.J. No. 3922, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 28, 2004, Simmons and Armstrong JJ.A. and Lane J. (ad ...