Administrative Law Blog
Knowledge Centre

Determination of internal standard of review of an administrative tribunal following Vavilov

July 20, 2021

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Law Enforcement Review Board – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Police – Penalties and suspensions – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming

Moffat v. Edmonton (City) Police Service, [2021] A.J. No. 678, 2021 ABCA 183, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 17, 2021, T.W. Wakeling, S.J. Greckol and E.A. Hughes JJ.A.

The appellant was a constable with the Edmonton Police Service. A civilian member made a harassment complaint, which led to charges of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, relating to answers given during the investigation. Following a hearing, the appellant was dismissed.

At the first stage of the hearing process, the Presiding Officer found the appellant engaged in a prolonged pattern of willful harassment followed by intentional deceit. The Presiding Officer found the conduct warranted dismissal.

The appellant appealed the Presiding Officer’s decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board (“LERB”) pursuant to the Police Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-17. The LERB reviewed the Presiding Officer’s decision on a reasonableness standard in respect of the merits and penalty. It dismissed the appeal.

The appellant obtained leave to appeal the LERB’s decision to the Court of Appeal on several issues. Of significance, the Court of Appeal considered the applicable internal standard of review for the LERB’s review of the Presiding Officer’s decision.

The Court of Appeal found the determination of the applicable internal standard of review to be applied by the LERB was a question of law. The Court noted that it is not necessary for separate appellate tribunals operating under different legislation to adopt the same internal standard of review; the applicable internal standard of review is always dependent on the governing legislation. The Court concluded, based on the applicable legislation, and following Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, that the LERB committed no error in selecting and applying a reasonableness standard or review to its review of the Presiding Officer’s decision. The Court of Appeal also found the LERB committed no error in finding the Presiding Officer’s decision was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

This case was digested by Joel A. Morris, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Joel A. Morris at [email protected].

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.

Tags

Expertise

Important Notice: The information contained in this Article is intended for general information purposes only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It is not intended as legal advice from Harper Grey LLP or the individual author(s), nor intended as a substitute for legal advice on any specific subject matter. Detailed legal counsel should be sought prior to undertaking any legal matter. The information contained in this Article is current to the last update and may change. Last Update: July 20, 2021.

Related

Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith
Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith
Harper Grey Ranks Amongst Top Firms in Lexpert’s 2025 Bulls-Eye Chart
Harper Grey Ranks Amongst Top Firms in Lexpert’s 2025 Bulls-Eye Chart
Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk  
Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk   Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk   Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk  
Harper Grey included on Lexpert’s 2025 List of 12 Largest Firms in Vancouver
Harper Grey included on Lexpert’s 2025 List of 12 Largest Firms in Vancouver
Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses
Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses
Imperfect Compliance? No Problem!
Imperfect Compliance? No Problem! Imperfect Compliance? No Problem! Imperfect Compliance? No Problem!
Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage
Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage
Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property
Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property
Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA
Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA
Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies?
Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies? Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies? Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies?
Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership
Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership
Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee
Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee
Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner
Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner
What you do know can hurt you
What you do know can hurt you What you do know can hurt you What you do know can hurt you
Reporting late provides no relief
Reporting late provides no relief Reporting late provides no relief Reporting late provides no relief
arrow icon

Subscribe