Barristers and solicitors

Disciplinary proceedings - Penalties - Disbarment; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Law Societies - Appeal process - Fresh evidence, admissibility - Jurisdiction - Procedural requirements and fairness
Following a finding of professional misconduct, a Hearing Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada ("LSUC") ordered that the former member be disbarred. The LSUC Appeal Panel set aside the penalty order and substituted its penalty that the former member receive ongoing medical treatment, file medical reports, and practice law only as an employee of an approved member of the LSUC. On appeal by the LSUC, the Court found that the Appeal Panel stepped out of its proper role as a "first review tribunal" and erroneously took on a trial de novo role and proceeded as an initial hearing panel. The Court set aside the penalty imposed by the Appeal Panel and reinstated the Hearing Panel's penalty of disbarment. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Crozier, [2005] O.J. No. 4520

Bias

Judiciary ; Judicial review - Reasonable apprehension of bias - test
The application of the Respondent City of Toronto (the "City") that a member of the panel of the Divisional Court recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed. The moving parties, by their own conduct, had waived their right to raise the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias and, in addition, the moving parties failed to establish that there was in fact a reasonable apprehension of bias on behalf of the subject judge. SOS-Save Our St. Clair Inc. v. Toronto (City), [2005] O.J. No. 4729

Decisions of administrative tribunals

Ministerial orders - Port divestiture; Judicial review - Natural justice and legitimate expectations - Procedural requirements and fairness - Standard of review - Patent unreasonableness
The judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Transport was dismissed as the court held that the Minister acted in good faith, the principles of natural justice were observed, and that the decision was not based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Newfoundland and Labrador v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1825

Employment law

Termination of employment; Decisions of administrative tribunals - College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners; Natural justice; Judicial review - Appeals - Procedural requirements and fairness
The Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia (the "College") to terminate him from his position as registrar of the College. The petition was dismissed as the judge found that College met its requirement of procedural fairness. On appeal, the Court held that the reviewing judge erred in mixing the merits of the decision to terminate with the process of termination. Furthermore, she made a palpable error of fact in finding that the Petitioner had notice of the grounds for termination when he had no prior notice of a report accusing him of dishonesty and no opportunity to address the accusation. This amounted to a denial of procedural fairness. The Court ordered that he be re-instated to his position as registrar, with full back pay and benefits less earnings from other employment. Wong v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2219

Freedom of information and protection of privacy

Disclosure; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Privacy Commissioner - Standing in judicial review; Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Procedural requirements and fairness
During a judicial review of its own decision, the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (the "Commissioner") was not permitted to argue the merits of its decision; however, it could explain the record and demonstrate that its decision was not patently unreasonable. British Columbia Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] B.C.J. No. 2394

Human rights complaints

Discrimination - Disability - Family members as care givers; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Human Rights Tribunal; Judicial review - Standard of review - Correctness - Patent unreasonableness; Jurisdiction of tribunal; Damages
The Court dismissed the Province's petition for judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the "Tribunal") that the Province discriminated against the Respondents, Ms. Hutchinson and her father, Mr. Hutchinson, on the basis of physical disability and family status in the manner in which it was applying its Choices in Support for Independent Living ("CSIL") policy which included a blanket prohibition against hiring family members. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established against the Province and upheld the Tribunal's order of monetary compensation of $105,850 to Mr. Hutchinson for lost opportunity for employment. British Columbia v. Hutchinson, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2270

Discrimination - Disability; Remedies - Certiorari; Damages; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Human Rights Tribunal; Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Crown immunity - Standard of review - Patent unreasonableness
On judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the court held that the Tribunal was within its statutory jurisdiction in making the damage awards it did and it did not err in finding liability for discrimination on the facts before it. British Columbia v. Bolster, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2365

Discrimination - Marital status; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Human Rights Commission; Judicial review applications - Evidence, admissibility - Jurisdiction
An appeal of a decision of an applications judge that the evidence in support of applications for judicial review be restricted to the certified Tribunal record was allowed. The applications judge erred in failing to consider that evidence outside of the administrative record can be considered where the grounds for review are any of the various forms of jurisdictional error. McFayden v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1817

National Parole Board hearings

Discretionary conditions - Long-term offenders - Statutory provisions - Criminal Code - Public safety; Judicial review - Standard of review - Correctness - Reasonableness simpliciter
An application for judicial review by the Applicant in respect of two discretionary conditions of the Applicant's long-term offender order which were confirmed by the National Parole Board ("NPB") was dismissed. The NPB's decision to impose a condition that the Applicant take medication was correct and, even though such a condition offended section 7 of the Charter, it could be saved under section 1. The no contact condition was reasonable and was therefore not subject to judicial review. Deacon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1827

For comments or suggestions, please contact: