Complainant in professional discipline matter lacked standing to judicially review merits of decision to dismiss complaint

19. November 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Complaints lacking merit – Judicial review – Appeals – Standing – Physicians and surgeons – Professional misconduct Makis v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2019] A.J. No. 1229, 2019 ABCA 341, Alberta Court of Appeal, September 13, 2019, R. Khullar J.A. ...

A decision to grant or refuse public interest standing is a discretionary decision and is afforded appellate deference. The Court of Appeal affirmed the chambers judge decision, finding that the chambers judge correctly identified and expressly addressed each of the applicable factors when exercising his discretion to decide not to grant public interest standing to the appellants.

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standing – Parties – Appeals Zoocheck Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry), [2019] A.J. No. 666, 2019 ABCA 208, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 24, 2019, B.K. O’Ferrall, T.W. Wakeling and J. Strekaf JJ.A. The applicants’ concern was with the care of an elephant named Lucy, ...

Court granted public standing to a First Nation’s representative in a judicial review of Yukon Coroner’s decision not to conduct an inquest

24. November 2016 0
The Chief Coroner of Yukon brought an application to remove the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation (LSCFN) from an application for judicial review brought by LSCFN on its own behalf and on behalf of Ms. Theresa Blackjack.  The LSCFN and Ms. Theresa Blackjack were seeking judicial review of the Coroner’s decision not to conduct an ...

A privacy commissioner adjudicator ordered the Calgary Police Service to stop disclosing more information than was necessary when providing collision reports to members of the public who had been involved in traffic accidents. On judicial review, the Police Service was unsuccessful in having the adjudicator’s decision quashed.

24. March 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Privacy commissioner – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure of records – Public bodies – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Calgary (City) Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2014] A.J. No. 1470, 2014 ABQB ...

Enbridge Pipelines (“Enbridge”) applied to the National Energy (the “Board”) for approval of its pipeline expansion project. The Board granted approval on conditions, but the applicants sought judicial review of three interlocutory decisions made by the Board.

23. December 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – National Energy Board – Natural resources – Oil and gas – Environmental matters – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Participatory rights – Judicial review – Application to participate in hearing – Standing – Compliance with legislation Forest Ethics Advocacy Assn. v. Canada ...

The Applicant (Mr. Plotkine) unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board had permitted 10 variances for the Respondent neighbours (Allan and Susan Seidenfeld) to build a home that did not comply with the building code.

26. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal boards – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Judicial review – Appeals – Parties – Standing – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Plotkine v Seidenfeld, [2014] O.J. No. 3375, 2014 ONSC 4157, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 16, 2014, T.R. Lederer ...

Appeal from order setting aside verdict of a coroner’s inquest on basis that the inquest was procedurally unfair. Appeal allowed on basis that the procedural deficiencies did not support quashing the verdict. Verdict reinstated.

22. October 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Coroner – Coroner’s inquest – Evidence – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Procedural requirements and fairness Charlie v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] Y.J. No. 61, 2013 YKCA 11, Yukon Territory Court of Appeal, September 12, 2013, M.E. Saunders, D.F. Tysoe, and E.A. Bennett JJ.A. The appellant ...

The Saskatechewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application for judicial review by an applicant seeking to quash the Law Society’s decision refusing him admission to membership. The court held that as gatekeeper of admissions, the Law Society’s participatory role in judicial review was appropriate and necessary. The Admissions and Education Committee of the Law Society (the “Committee”) and Benchers’ decisions were reviewable on a reasonableness standard on questions of fact and credibility. The standard of correctness applied to questions of law and mixed fact and law. The Committee’s decision, affirmed by the Benchers, denying the applicant’s application for membership on the basis he had not satisfied the Committee of good character, fell within the range of reasonable outcomes having regard to evidence and credibility of witnesses. The Committee did not err in concluding the applicant had not met the onus of proving good character.

25. June 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Standing – Barristers and solicitors – Admission to profession – Judicial review – Disclosure – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness DeMaria v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, [2013] S.J. No. 292, 2013 SKQB 178, Saskatchewan ...

An interpreter (“Sandhu”) sought judicial review of a Provincial Court decision that he could not act as an interpreter for a party in a small claims action. His petition was dismissed.

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Interpreters in court – Judges – Powers and duties – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sandhu v. British Columbia (Provincial Court, Judge), [2012] B.C.J. No. 1052, 2012 BCSC 1064, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 17, ...

A person may bring a legal proceeding to challenge the decision of a public or quasi-public body only if the person’s private rights are directly affected by the decision, or the person is exceptionally prejudiced by the decision in a manner different from the general public. In the alternative, a Court has discretion to grant public interest standing, where a party does not have personal standing. A group opposing the decision of the Director, Ministry of the Environment to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for the construction and operation of a Class 4 wind facility in the Township of Mapletown, did not meet the test for public interest standing as it did not establish that a genuine interest in the issues raised. As well, PMI had an appeal right to the Environmental Review Tribunal, which it had exercised.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Environmental matters – Judicial review – Parties – Standing – Public interest – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation Preserve Mapleton Inc. v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), [2012] O.J. No. 2037, 2012 ONSC 2115, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April ...