Civil Resolution Tribunal’s decision to limit the involvement of lawyers was considered unreasonable by the BC Court of Appeal

15. September 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Civil Resolution Tribunal – Judicial review – Appeals – Legislative compliance – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Condominiums – Strata corporations – Jurisdiction of court Strata Plan NW 2575 v. Booth, [2020] B.C.J. No. 865, 2020 BCCA 153, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 28, 2020, M.V. Newbury, ...

The issuance of a building permit was unreasonable because the drawings were not made in compliance with the Architects Act

15. September 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Municipal Board – Rules and by-laws – Building permits – Judicial review – Legislative compliance – Public interest – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Engineers and architects Architectural Institute of British Columbia v. Langford (City), [2020] B.C.J. No. 886, 2020 BCSC 801, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 29, ...

The decision of an examining board failed to clearly consider the applicant’s health concerns following a failed assessment

16. June 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Dental Board Association and College – Failure to provide reasons – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Dentist – Training requirements Mattar v. National Dental Examining Board of Canada, [2020] O.J. No. 779, 2020 ONSC 403, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 24, 2020, C.D. Aitken, ...

Application to appeal granted after an applicant raises significant questions of law potentially engaging Vavilov

16. June 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Police Review Board – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Police – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming Moffat v. Edmonton (City) Police Service, [2020] A.J. No. 271, 2020 ABCA 80, Alberta Court of Appeal, February 27, 2020, M.G. Crighton J.A. The applicant was a ...

Court dismisses an application concerning the condition of a residence on the basis that the application was out of time and the orders within the discretion of the respondent

18. February 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Public Health Appeal Board – Judicial review – Limitations – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction Peter v. Public Health Appeal Board of Alberta, [2019] A.J. No. 1761, 2019 ABQB 989, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 20, ...

Court of Appeal allows an appeal on the basis that the underlying judgment effectively reviewed a decision of an assessment board by applying a correctness standard

18. February 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Assessment Review Board – Expert evidence – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Correctness – Municipalities – Tax Wheatland County v. Federated Co-Operatives Limited, [2019] A.J. No. 1768, 2019 ABCA 513, Alberta Court of Appeal, December 23, 2019, F.F. Slatter, M.G. Crighton and R. Khullar JJ.A. The ...

The OIPC unreasonably balanced privacy of the individuals over appropriate sharing and access of health information to respond to complaints

15. October 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Information and Privacy Commissioner – Judicial review – Appeals – Legislative compliance – Fresh evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure Gowrishankar v. J.K., [2019] A.J. No. 1167, 2019 ABCA 316, Alberta Court of Appeal, August 30, 2019, B.K. ...

College of Physicians of Alberta failed to afford an internationally trained physician adequate procedural fairness

15. October 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Professions – Physicians and surgeons – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Mohamed v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2019] A.J. No. 1134, 2019 ABQB 657, Alberta Court of Queen’s ...

A decision to grant or refuse public interest standing is a discretionary decision and is afforded appellate deference. The Court of Appeal affirmed the chambers judge decision, finding that the chambers judge correctly identified and expressly addressed each of the applicable factors when exercising his discretion to decide not to grant public interest standing to the appellants.

16. July 2019 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standing – Parties – Appeals Zoocheck Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry), [2019] A.J. No. 666, 2019 ABCA 208, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 24, 2019, B.K. O’Ferrall, T.W. Wakeling and J. Strekaf JJ.A. The applicants’ concern was with the care of an elephant named Lucy, ...