The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (the “AOCP”) was unsuccessful in its appeal of decisions made by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had a statutory authority to “stand in the shoes” of the Marketing Commission and was entitled, on a review of a Commission decision, to establish specific pricing formulas and to order the Commission to amend its regulation to implement such pricing formulas.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Assn. of Ontario Chicken Processors v. Ontario (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal), [2003] O.N. No. 330, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 31, 2003, Blair, Carnwath and J. ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...

An employee of the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s was unsuccessful in her application to set aside the decision of the Human Rights Commission not to refer her complaint to a board of inquiry. The Court held that the Commission exercised its administrative screening function in a reasonable manner. The legislative scheme in the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14 required the Court to show considerable deference to a decision of the Human Rights Commission. While it may have been preferable for the Commission to have provided fuller reasons, it was under no statutory obligation to do so. The reasons given by the Commission adequately indicated to the employee that, following a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, her complaint did not meet the Commission’s threshold level for referring the matter to a board of inquiry.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Evidence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness Spurrell v. Newfoundland (Human Rights Commission), [2003] N.J. No. 53, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, February 25, 2003, Adams J. An employee of ...

Although job related information pertaining to RCMP officers: (a) the list of historical postings, their status and date, (b) the list of ranks and the dates they achieved those ranks, (c) their years of service, and (d) their anniversary date of service, constituted “personal information” as defined under s.3 of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.-P-21, it should nonetheless be disclosed because it fell within the “position or functions of the individual exception” under s.3(j). The information did not reveal anything about the competence or divulge any personal opinion given outside the course of employment, but rather provided information relevant to understanding the functions performed by the officers.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Exceptions – Federal employees – Personal information – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2003] S.C.J. No. 7, Supreme Court of Canada, March 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and ...

On appeal, a Human Rights complainant failed to establish that an adjudicator under the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14, erred in failing to find discrimination on the basis of disability or that the Trial Division judge erred on appeal. The fact that her employer considered her prior use of sick leave in determining which of two employees should be awarded the position of “lead hand” porter did not amount to discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability as the complainant’s absences from work did form evidence of a pattern of illness or injury which would indicate that degree of permanence or impairment necessary to prove disability.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Evans v. Health Care Corporation of St. John’s, [2003] N.J. No. 61, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Court of Appeal, March 6, 2003, Cameron and Welsh JJ.A. and Russell J. (ex officio) The complainant hospital ...

The Appellant pharmacists were the sole shareholders in a pharmaceutical distribution company. The company was convicted of income tax evasion under the Income Tax Act. Following the company’s conviction, the Appellants were charged and convicted of professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Pharmacists. The pharmacists appealed to the court, arguing that breach of a taxing statute by a corporation is not conduct “relevant” to the practice of pharmacy. The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the committee’s decision met the standard.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Tax evasion – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Davies v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2003] O.J. No. 91, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 15, 2003, Blair, E. Macdonald and MacDougall JJ. The Appellants were pharmacists and members of ...

On the morning of the first day of a College hearing, Dr. Howatt requested an adjournment based on the report of his psychiatrist indicating that he was mentally ill and unable to instruct counsel. The College objected to the filing of the report unless the psychiatrist was present to be cross-examined. The Discipline Committee refused to adjourn the hearing and the College proceeded to call evidence. Dr. Howatt was found guilty on all counts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the refusal of the adjournment was a denial of natural justice. The application was allowed and the decision quashed.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Adjournment of hearing – Standard of review – Reasonableness Howatt v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 138, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 21, 2003, Carnwath, Whalen and MacDougall ...

A political party contesting the civic election and an elected member of the Vancouver City Council applied for judicial review of a decision of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for the City of Vancouver, involving what is required for a person to be able to vote in the Vancouver civic election if they are not pre-registered or on the voters list on Election Day. The court held that a liberal interpretation ought to be given to statutes that deal with exercising the right to vote. The decision of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer was held to be wrong.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Elections – Right to vote – Documentation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Correctness Coalition of Progressive Electors v. Vancouver (Deputy Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2939, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 13, 2002, Powers, J. This was an application for judicial review of a ...

The Petitioner, a School Board, succeeded in its application to quash a decision of a BC Human Rights Tribunal, allowing a student’s complaint of discrimination against it

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Schools – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Sexual orientation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness North Vancouver School District No. 44 v. Jubran, [2003] B.C.J. No. 10, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 2, 2003, Stewart, J. Jubran, a high school student, filed a complaint of discrimination against School District No. ...

An inmate (“Smith”) at the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (“FSCC”) succeeded in his application for judicial review of a decision by the Disciplinary Board which found that he had violated regulations by consuming marijuana. The court held that the Board’s failure to allow Smith to be represented by counsel was a breach of the principles of natural justice as the charge had serious consequences, was complex and Smith did not have sufficient capacity to properly represent himself at the hearing.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Discipline of inmates – Use of narcotics – Judicial review application – Right to legal counsel – Natural justice – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Standard of review – Correctness Smith v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre, [2002] A.J. No. 1472, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, November 28, 2002, Clackson J. Smith was an ...