The Appellant did not demonstrate that the Respondent Board’s decisions regarding applicable management fees were unreasonable and therefore the appeals were dismissed

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Management fees – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Reasonableness simpliciter Atco Electric Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2004] A.J. No. 906, Alberta Court of Appeal, August 16, 2004, Côté, Wittmann and Costigan JJ.A. The ...

A decision of the appeal tribunal, constituted under the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Act, to disclose the entire file of the worker to her employer was quashed as the tribunal erred in law in its consideration of the notion of “relevance” resulting in an order which was unreasonable

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Workers Compensation Boards – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter O’Donnell (Re), [2004] Y.J. No. 76, Yukon Territory Supreme Court, July 19, 2004, Veale J. An appeal tribunal appointed under the Yukon Worker’s Compensation Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c.231, ordered, on ...

The decision of an arbitrator appointed under the British Columbia Strata Property Act with respect to issues of liability was not clearly wrong and therefore the Applicant’s petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act was dismissed. With respect to the arbitrator’s award of costs, the court held that the only costs the arbitrator was entitled to award were for party-and-party costs or special costs pursuant to the British Columbia Rules of Court. The arbitrator therefore erred in basing the award on the actual costs incurred. In addition, the arbitrator was not entitled to award costs in relation to the court applications made subsequent to the commencement of the arbitration and he also erred in law in awarding costs to the strata corporation based on the strata council bylaws. The court set aside the arbitrator’s award of costs and held that they should be assessed on a party-and-party basis.

26. October 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Arbitration and award – Arbitrators – Right to award costs – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Blackmore v. Strata Plan VR-274, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1719, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 20, 2004, Goepel J. An arbitrator appointed under the British Columbia Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. ...

The court dismissed an appeal overturning a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal which had held that section 70(6) of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, does not require a distribution of the actuarial surplus when there is a partial wind-up of an Ontario defined benefit pension plan

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Financial Services Commission – Pension plans – winding-up – surplus – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Statutory interpretation – Legislation Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), [2004] S.C.J. No. 51, Supreme Court of Canada, July 29, 2004, McLachlin ...

Costello appealed the decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) which found that he had acted as an “advisor” without being registered to do so under section 25(1)(c) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990 C. s.5 (the “Act”). The court employed a standard of review of reasonableness and found that the Commission’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Personal interests – Public interest – Stock brokers and advisors – Disciplinary proceedings – Advisor – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Costs Costello v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2004] O.J. No. 2972, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July ...

The rigid application of In-Home Treatment Program guidelines, to the exclusion of the consideration of a family’s particular circumstances, amounted to an unreasonable exercise of discretion by the Defendant

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – School boards – Powers and duties – Discretion of delegated authority – Special programs for autistic children – Funding – Guidelines – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Statutory provisions Dassonville-Trudel (Guardian ad litem of) v. Halifax Regional School Board, [2004] N.S.J. No. 241, Nova ...

On judicial review, the court held that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Human Rights Tribunal member’s decision to order the matter to proceed to an inquiry was unreasonable

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon Regional Health Authority v. Kahsai, [2004] S.J. No. 417, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, May 27, 2004, Foley J. The Saskatoon Regional ...

The court held that the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses (the “Council”) was unreasonable in its approach to the assessment of the Respondent’s credibility and in its application of the standard of proof, holding that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to safely sustain two of the complaints against the Appellant Nurse. However, the Council’s decision that the Nurse failed to maintain the ethical standards of practice of the profession was rationally supported by the evidence and it was not shown to be unreasonable.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Gillis v. Council for Licensed Practical Nurses, [2004] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 20, 2004, ...

An appeal pursuant to section 43 of the Public Hospitals Act was dismissed as the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the “HPARB”) was held to have understood its role and applied the proper tests, resulting in a conclusion that was reasonable. While there had been a denial of procedural fairness in that the Appellant was provided with a package of 17 complaints at a meeting without being afforded an opportunity to investigate and consider them, that denial was “corrected” when it was agreed by the parties to have the situation reviewed by an independent expert agreeable to both parties.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Hospital privileges – Suspensions – Fairness – Public interest – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Soremekun v. University Health Network, [2004] O.J. No. 2085, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 18, 2004, MacFarland, Wilson and Swinton ...

The court overturned the decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) who ordered a government agency, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (the “MPAC”), to provide a collection agency with an electronic record containing personal information of Ontario residents as the Commissioner erred in finding that there was legislation that expressly authorized the MPAC to disclose information for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (the “MFIPPA”)

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Electronic records – Municipalities – Property assessment – Statutory interpretation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 2118, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 21, 2004, Benotto, Dunn and ...