An employee (“Ramsay”) of the City of Charlottetown (the “City”) brought an application for judicial review of a decision of the PEI Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) dismissing his complaint that he had been discriminated against based on his political beliefs and disability. The application was dismissed.

23. December 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Investigations – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witnesses – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ramsay v. Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2014] P.E.I.J. No. 41, 2014 ...

The Applicants were unsuccessful in seeking a judicial review of the Respondent Coroner’s decision to not allow cross-examination on a narrow issue that related solely to credibility

22. July 2014 0
Administrative law – Coroner’s inquest – Police officers – Investigations – Right to cross-examine – Judicial review application – Premature – Witnesses – Privileged communications Minty v. Lucas, [2014] O.J. No. 2579, 2014 ONSC 3169, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, May 27, 2014, F.P. Kiteley, M.R. Dambrot and T.D. Ray JJ. The ...

A man who worked in mining operations of Xstrata Canada Corporation (“Xstrata”) between 1979 and 1996 (“LeBlanc”) was successful on appeal from a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (“Appeals Tribunal”) for reimbursement of medical treatment related to heavy metals detected in his blood

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Policies – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Hearings – Fairness  – Conduct of hearings – Independent expert – Judicial review – Witnesses – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness LeBlanc v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2012] N.B.J. No. 199, 2012 NBCA 49, New Brunswick Court of ...

By enrolling in a university, students become subject to the institution’s discretion in resolving academic matters. Courts will only interfere in the core academic functions of universities in cases of “manifest unfairness”. Based on these principles, the Court denied an application on judicial review to set aside a decision of the Senate Appeals Committee of the University of Alberta, which upheld the Residency Program Committee’s requirement that a postgraduate medical student in cardiac surgery enter a six-month remediation period prior to entering her fourth year of residency. Given that the resident’s right to continue her profession and employment was not at stake, she had no right to call or cross-examine witnesses in the academic proceedings.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Medical residents – Evaluation of residents – Physicians and Surgeons – Training requirements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Witnesses Alsaigh v. University of Ottawa, [2012] O.J. No. 2027, 2012 ONSC 2313, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

Although the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “ICRC”) is a screening committee and not a quasi-judicial one, it still owed a disclosure obligation to the applicant member of the College, a registered nurse, which required it to provide the applicant with notice of the Registrar’s report of its investigation, notice of the substance of the allegations against her and an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the allegations. In this case, the College agreed that the decision of the ICRC should be quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the ICRC for fresh determination, with directions that the applicant be allowed to make submissions in respect of seven witness statements.

25. January 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Nurses – Investigations – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Disclosure – Evidence – Witnesses – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction Ajao v. College of Nurses of Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 5280, 2011 ...

The Applicants, BP Canada and Inter Pipeline Fund, were granted leave to appeal a decision of the Energy Resources Conservation Board in respect of approvals it granted to a different company, Taylor Processing Inc.

27. September 2011 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Oil and gas – Contracts – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy Resources Conservation Board – Judicial review – Appeals – Failure to provide reasons – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witnesses Inter Pipeline Fund v. Alberta Energy Resources Conservation ...

The Appellant (the Council of the Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association) unsuccessfully brought an appeal to set aside the decision of a Chambers judge, which had set aside its finding of unprofessional conduct against the Respondent, John Philip Murray

22. February 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Veterinarians – Professional governance and discipline – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Witnesses – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness Murray v. Saskatchewan Veterinary ...

The Court of Appeal quashed a disciplinary tribunal’s decision as unreasonable because it rested only on an assessment of credibility but was not supported by physical evidence, did not account for the totality of the evidence, and relied on hearsay evidence offered by parties who did not witness the events in question

25. January 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Licensed Practical Nurses – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Witnesses – Evidence Parsons v. College of Licensed Practical Nurses, [2010] N.J. No. 374, 2010 NLTD(G) 182, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, December 1, 2010, R.M. Hall ...

Refusing to grant an injured worker (“Johnson”) the opportunity to cross-examine medical witnesses on a Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) disability benefits determination was held to be a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice

27. July 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Witnesses Johnson v. Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), [2010] A.J. No. 663, 2010 ABQB 393, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, June 9, 2010, K. G. ...

The Appellant, Western Forest Products, successfully appealed a decision made by a chambers judge holding that in assessing stumpage to be paid to the province, it is not appropriate to rely on averages rather than actual amounts

22. September 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Forest Appeals Commission – Natural resources – Forestry – Stumpage fees – Judicial review – Witnesses – Evidence – Admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter British Columbia (Minister of Forests and Range) v. Forest Appeals Commission, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1616, 2009 BCCA 354, B.C. Court ...