The Appeal of Genex from a decision of the CRTC cancelling its radio broadcast licence was dismissed as Genex was unable to establish a breach of the principles of natural justice, the standards of procedural fairness or the CRTC’s own rules of procedure. It was also unable to demonstrate a jurisdictional error or a material error in law that would render the decision unreasonable.

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression Genex Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1440, Federal Court of Appeal, September 1, 2005, Richard C.J., Létourneau ...

The purported revocation of the Respondents’ motor vehicle dealer licences by the Registrar under the Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was invalid as the revocation was made without giving the dealers a right to a hearing, which right was absolute under section 7 of the Act

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Compliance with legislation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Motor Vehicle Dealers – Hearings – Right to hearing Amerato v. Ontario (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Registrar), [2005] O.J. No. 3713, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 8, 2005, K.N. Feldman, E.E. Gillese and H.S. LaForme JJ.A. An appeal was ...

When interpreting the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 and its Regulations, the standard of review of the General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, was correctness. The General Manager’s interpretation of the food service requirement, which permitted the sale of alcohol so long as the establishment was primarily engaged in the service of food during all hours of operation, was correct. There was sufficient evidence to support the General Manager’s conclusion that patrons of the Petitioner, 532871 B.C. Ltd., carrying on business as The Urban Well, were not consumers of food. The General Manager’s decision on the application of the law to the facts was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter 532871 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. The Urban Well) v. British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), [2005] B.C.J. No. 1821, British Columbia Court ...

A former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario brought an application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (“ICAO”) which allowed an appeal from the sanction imposed by the Discipline Committee and ruled that the student’s name was to be disclosed in the publication reporting the sanction and that his discipline file was not to be sealed. The court held that the decision of the Appeal Committee was reasonable and the application was therefore dismissed.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Penalties – Publication ban – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Disclosure – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter John Doe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 3013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 14, 2005, P.T. Matlow, E.M. Macdonald and ...

The Appellant was unable to show that the Ontario Securities Commission’s conclusions in overturning the decision of the Ontario District Council of the Investment Dealers Association with respect to one count against the Appellant was unreasonable; nor was it shown that the Commission failed to show appropriate deference to the findings of the District Council. The Commission did not commit any error in principle in substituting a new penalty.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Boulieris v. Investment Dealers Association. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 1984, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 11, 2005, J.D. Carnwath, J.R.R. Jennings and K.E. Swinton ...

A panel of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) found that the Respondent Donnini had engaged in unlawful insider trading contrary to section 76(1) of the Ontario Securities Act. The Commission suspended Donnini’s registration as a securities trader for 15 years and ordered him to pay investigation and hearing costs of $186,000. Donnini appealed all aspects of the Commissioner’s order. A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from liability, but allowed the appeal in respect of the sanctions imposed on Donnini and the award of costs. The Divisional Court reduced Donnini’s suspension from 15 to 4 years and directed the Commission to reconsider its costs award by following specific procedural steps. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commission’s findings on liability and sanction but remitted the matter of costs for the Commission’s reconsideration.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Costs – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Donnini v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 240, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, M. Rosenberg, M.J. Moldaver and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A. In February ...

The owners of a nightclub (“Tonic Bar”) sought judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision on penalty relating to admitted contraventions of the “occupant load” requirement imposed on Tonic Bar under the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations. The court upheld the adjudicator’s decision to impose a suspension 50% longer than the minimum mandated by the Regulations where the evidence established that the Tonic Bar was “seriously in contravention” of the occupant load restrictions on at least three occasions.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Permits and licences – Suspensions 600428 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. Tonic Bar) v. British Columbia (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager), [2004] B.C.J. No. 2291, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 2, 2004, Hutchison J. The Liquor Control and ...

An application was granted for an order of certiorari to quash a resolution of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority that suspended the Applicant doctor’s medical staff privileges pending the outcome of a hearing into certain complaints against him. The Applicant’s privileges were re-instituted subject to certain conditions.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Hospital privileges – Suspensions – Hearings – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Administrative decisions – Bias – Remedies – Certiorari – Injunctions Fong v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, [2004] M.J. No. 299, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, July 30, 2004, Beard J. The ...

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 declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...