Judicial review inappropriate forum to make standalone challenges to set aside Crown Proceeding Act and Water Act

21. June 2017 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Environmental Appeal Board – Hearing de novo – Judicial review application – Availability – Striking out Lindelauf v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2017] B.C.J. No. 733, 2017 BCSC 626, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 18, 2017, S.A. Donegan J. Section 9 of the Water Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. ...

The applicant Ukrainian Museum was denied its application to stay or quash the proceedings before the respondent Human Rights Commission as the application was premature

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Hearings – Unreasonable delay – Test – Judicial review – Delay – Judicial review application – Striking out – Premature Ukrainian Museum of the Ukrainian v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission), [2010] S.J. No. 256, 2010 SKQB 162, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, April ...

The Applicant (“Dr. Khan”) unsuccessfully brought an application for judicial review in respect of a recommendation made by the Respondent Hospital’s Executive Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”). The Committee recommended that Dr. Khan’s hospital privileges be terminated.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Bias – Judicial review application – Striking out – Premature – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction Khan v. Scarborough General Hospital, [2009} O.J. No. 5437, Ontario Superior ...

The Applicant accountant (“Kawula”) unsuccessfully brought an application for judicial review in respect of the Respondent Institute’s decision to proceed with a hearing regarding her conduct

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Institute of Chartered Accountants – Investigations – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – Limitations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Delay – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Judicial review application – Striking out – Premature ...

The City of Hamilton was successful in its motion to quash two applications for judicial review concerning the termination of three former employees where the court held that the public employees were governed by contract law and contract law displaced public law as the more appropriate forum in which the employees were required to seek a remedy, as per Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] S.C.J. No. 9

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Parallel action – Wrongful dismissal – Public law vs. Contract law – Judicial review application – Striking out – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Costs Redmond v. Hamilton (City), [2008] O.J. No. 5233, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 17, 2008, ...

Pursuant to sections 75 and 76 of the of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), which is Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 (the “Act”), investigators appointed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario have the power to require observation of surgery conducted by members under investigation, require a member to participate in an interview, and compel a member to answer questions put by investigators. Applications for judicial review of the appointment of an investigator were dismissed on the basis that they were premature, as the investigations had only begun looking into the physicians’ practices and no disciplinary actions had been taken.

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and Surgeons – Professional misconduct – Incompetence – Investigations – Powers of investigators – Judicial review application – Striking out – Premature – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation Gore v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2008] O.J. ...

The court dismissed a motion to quash an application for judicial review on the basis that the Applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a full hearing before a panel of the University Discipline Tribunal. The court allowed the Applicant’s cross-motion to stay the hearing of the Discipline Tribunal pending the resolution of the application for judicial review.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Universities – Student discipline – Remedies – Alternative remedies – Judicial review application – Striking out – Bias – Jurisdiction – Stay of proceedings Freeman-Maloy v. York University, [2004] O.J. No. 3123, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 20, 2004, Epstein J. The Applicant was a student activist at York University who had engaged ...

The application was for a judicial review of a decision of the Registrar refusing Ms. Moses’s registration as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act. The applicant’s judicial review application was struck as moot, since she had already registered pursuant to section 6(1)(f)of the Act. In determining the issue the court considered (1) registration pursuant to 6(1)(f) of the Act provided the applicant with all of the same benefits as registration pursuant to 6(1)(a) of the Act; (2) the judicial review was not an efficient use of scarce judicial resources; and (3) in the absence of a dispute having an effect on the rights of parties a Court decision would be an intrusion on the role of the legislative branch of the government.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Registration as an Indian – Judicial review application – Striking out – Mootness – Compliance with legislation Moses v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1835, Federal Court, December 3, 2003, Hargrave, Prothonotary Ms. Moses was confirmed as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act. She filed an application ...