Barristers and solicitors

Disciplinary proceedings - Professional misconduct - Penalties - Suspension - Costs; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Law Societies; Investigations - Fairness; Judicial review - Bias - Natural justice - Standard of review - Reasonableness simplici
The appeal by Histed from his convictions by a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society of Manitoba on two charges of professional misconduct was dismissed. The discipline hearing before the Panel was not a nullity. Any reasonable apprehension of bias that may have existed at the investigative stage was cured by the full and fair hearing on the charges against the Appellant before the Panel. The findings of professional misconduct, the one month suspension and the order of costs, were all decisions that met the applicable standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter. Histed v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2006] M.J. No. 290

Municipalities

Planning and zoning - Variance orders; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Municipal Appeal Committee - Judicial review - Failure to provide reasons - Procedural requirements and fairness - Natural justice
The City’s Appeal Committee overturned a Variance Order that allowed the Applicant to subdivide his property. An application for judicial review of this decision was dismissed. The Court held that the Appeal Committee did not err in its interpretation of the criteria set out in section 247(3) of the City of Winnipeg Charter. No manifest injustice occurred and the decision was not arbitrary, oppressive or improper. The Appeal Committee did not act in bad faith and there was no breach of natural justice. Rohs v. Winnipeg (City), [2006] M.J. No. 275

By-laws - Planning and zoning - Permits and licences - Variance orders; Decisions of administrative tribunals - Farm Practices Protection Board - Government policies; Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Standard of review - Reasonableness simpliciter
An appeal was allowed from a Divisional Court decision concluding that the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (the “Board”) lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a zoning bylaw restricted a normal farming practice. The Divisional Court erred in adopting an interpretation of the words “municipal bylaw” that excluded a zoning bylaw. Therefore, the Board had jurisdiction to determine the issue. However, the Board’s decision was unreasonable, as it did not comply with a provincial policy statement regarding the required distances between farm operations and their neighbours. Hill and Hill Farms Ltd. v. Bluewater (Municipality), [2006] O.J. No. 3674

Planning and zoning; Arbitration - Laches - Limitations; Judicial review - Delay - Jurisdiction - Standard of review - Correctness; Remedies
The appeal of the municipality from a decision of a motions judge who found that the doctrine of laches did not apply to an arbitration proceeding was allowed. While the motions judge was correct when he held that the statutory limitations of the Limitations of Actions Act applied to arbitrations under the Arbitration Act, he erred when he concluded that the equitable defence of laches did not apply when statutory limitations applied. The case was therefore remitted back to arbitrator for determination. Rivergate Properties Inc. v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality), [2006] M.J. No. 281

Legislation - By-laws - Ultra vires; Permits and licences - Fees; Judicial review - Compliance with legislation - Powers of delegated authority - Jurisdiction - Standard of review - Correctness
An application for judicial review of a Bylaw passed by the Respondent City of Red Deer to regulate drinking establishments was dismissed. The Bylaw was not ultra vires the Municipal Government Act. The City enacted the Bylaw for municipal purposes and without ulterior motive. The Bylaw did not confer unlimited or illegal power. The Bylaw did not result in a duplication of powers under the Gaming and Liquor Act because that legislation did not address safety concerns that were particular to a specific community. The delegation permitted by the Bylaw was administrative and was therefore legal. Passutto Hotels (1984) Ltd. v. Red Deer (City), [2006] A.J. No. 1100

Stock Brokers

Decisions of administrative tribunals - Securities Commission - Review of a decision of its own disciplinary panel; Hearings - Parties; Judicial review - Compliance with legislation - Standard of review - Reasonableness simpliciter
An appeal by Global Securities from a decision of the Securities Exchange Commission Panel was dismissed. Although the Hearing Panel itself could not make submission on the merits of its own decision, the Exchange was not precluded from doing so. The Commission’s decision on standing was reasonable, as it was based on the principle that the decision directly affected the Exchange, as it engaged one of the Exchange’s primary functions, the prosecution of infractions. Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Executive Director, Securities Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 2075

For comments or suggestions, please contact: