The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the reprimand of a lawyer who had written an inflammatory letter to a judge, despite the acknowledged limitation such a sanction placed on his expressive rights under the Charter.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Human rights complaints – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Validity of legislation – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review –  Reasonableness simpliciter –  Correctness Doré v. Barreau ...

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that a regulation which sets a maximum value for milk quota was intra vires and valid as being a lawful exercise of statutory authority

25. January 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Dairy Farmers – Powers under legislation – Milk quotas – Legislation – Validity of legislation – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Taylor v. Dairy Farmers of Nova Scotia, [2010] N.S.J. No. 624, 2010 NSSC 436, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, November 25, 2010, P.J. ...

A mortgage broker (“Broers”) was successful in obtaining judicial review of the decision of the Executive Director of the Real Estate Council of Alberta (“RECA”) where the Court found that the Executive Director improperly cancelled Broers mortgage licence in a summary manner rather than proceeding pursuant to Part 3 of the Real Estate Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. R-5 (the “Act”)

28. September 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Real Estate Council – Registrar of Mortgage Brokers – Powers under legislation – Rules and by-laws – Validity of legislation – Permits and licences – Notice requirements – Public interest – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Broers v. ...

An application for judicial review seeking a declaration that subsection 41(b.1) of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227 (“MMAR”) is invalid, and that the matter be referred back to the Minister of Health for reconsideration and that the Court retain supervisory jurisdiction over Health Canada’s implementation of a revised process for allowing a single designated producer of medical marijuana to produce for more than one medical user. The Court held that subsection 41(b.1) was a restriction on the Applicants’ Section 7 liberty and security rights in the Charter, that could not be saved by section 1. The matter was referred back to the Minister of Health for reconsideration consistent with the Court’s reasons, but the Court declined to retain supervisory jurisdiction.

Administrative law – Medicinal use of marijuana – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life liberty or security of the person – Validity of legislation – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Legislation – Ultra vires Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] F.C.J. No. 6, Federal Court ...

The Court dismissed a petition for a declaration that the sections of the Legal Professions Act, S.B.C. 1998, c.9 and the Law Society Rules allowing a practice review on a solicitor are inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are of no force and effect. The Court further refused to quash the decision of the Law Society’s Practice Standards Committee to conduct a practice review in respect of the Petitioner on the grounds that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and made in bad faith.

Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Boards and tribunals – Disciplinary proceedings – Charter of Rights – Application to disciplinary proceedings – Validity of legislation – Judicial review – Natural justice – Disclosure of third party records – Solicitor-client privilege Greene v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 586, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 21, ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...