A resident (“the resident”) in a housing co-operative appealed the decision of the general membership to terminate her membership in the co-operative, and to require her to vacate the unit. The court concluded that the co-op observed the principals of natural justice in terminating the resident’s membership and that the decision to terminate the membership was supported by the facts. Although the co-op refused to listen to all of the Resident’s evidence at the hearing, the court concluded that the co-operative had been reasonable in the way they dealt with the hearing and had complied with the Co-operative Association Act, R.S.B.C. 1999, c. 28 and the rules of natural justice in coming to their decision to evict the resident.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Housing co-operatives – Governance – Membership – Termination – Judicial review – Natural justice DaCosta v. City Edge Housing Co-operative, [2003] B.C.J. No. 571, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 14, 2003, Baker J. Ms. DaCosta and her children were residents of the City Edge Housing Co-operative (“the Co-op”). Ms. DaCosta was in a ...

A professional dog handler, Mr. Lee, was abusive towards volunteer staff. The Confirmation Show Committee recommended that he be found guilty of infractions of show rules and that he no longer be allowed to participate in any Alberta Kennel Club (“AKC”) shows. The complaint was brought before the Discipline Committee of the Canadian Kennel Committee (“CKC”). During the hearing, the Committee members solicited more information about Mr. Lee from a representative of the complainant. The complainant’s representative gave a great deal of irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and the Discipline Committee imposed a two-year period of debarment. Mr. Lee’s appeal to the Appeal Committee of the CKC was dismissed. Mr. Lee then brought an appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, who concluded that the decisions of consensual tribunals are reviewable by a court of law and that Mr. Lee’s procedural rights were breached when the Discipline Committee solicited irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence prior to making its decision.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Procedural requirements – Jurisdiction – Evidence Lee v. Canadian Kennel Club Appeal Committee, [2003] A.J. No. 64, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, January 17, 2003, Lee J. The complaint arose out of dispute between Mr. Lee, a professional dog handler, and ...

The Appellant was charged with professional misconduct after publicly demonstrating with a group outside of the Planned Parenthood Sexual Health Centre in Regina. Prior to the hearing, the applicant sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Discipline Committee from proceeding with the hearing into his conduct on the grounds that his Charter rights would be infringed if the Discipline Committee determined that whatever occurred while he was picketing amounted to professional misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The court concluded that the Act provides an alternative remedy with rights of appeal for the member being disciplined and that the alternative remedy was adequate. The applicant’s application was dismissed in its entirety and the Association was awarded costs.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Charter of Rights – Remedies – Alternative remedies – Self-governing professions – Statutory provisions Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Assn. of Licensed Practical Nurses, [2003] S.J. No. 54, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 7, 2003, Gunn J. The applicant was a member of the ...

Ms. Pritchard was terminated from employment with Sears Canada and filed a Human Rights complaint. The majority of the complaint was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Pritchard commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission’s refusal to deal with her complaint. During the course of the review Ms. Pritchard’s counsel requested a legal opinion that was provided to the commissioners by the Commission’s in-house counsel. The Commission argued that the opinion was privileged. The Divisional Court held that the opinion was not privileged. The decision of the three judge panel of the Divisional Court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the opinion was privileged.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review application – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – In-house legal opinion Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 215, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 29, 2003, Finlayson, Charron and Armstrong JJ.A. The issue raised in the appeal was whether a legal opinion prepared ...

The Appellant pharmacists were the sole shareholders in a pharmaceutical distribution company. The company was convicted of income tax evasion under the Income Tax Act. Following the company’s conviction, the Appellants were charged and convicted of professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Pharmacists. The pharmacists appealed to the court, arguing that breach of a taxing statute by a corporation is not conduct “relevant” to the practice of pharmacy. The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the committee’s decision met the standard.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Tax evasion – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Davies v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2003] O.J. No. 91, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 15, 2003, Blair, E. Macdonald and MacDougall JJ. The Appellants were pharmacists and members of ...

On the morning of the first day of a College hearing, Dr. Howatt requested an adjournment based on the report of his psychiatrist indicating that he was mentally ill and unable to instruct counsel. The College objected to the filing of the report unless the psychiatrist was present to be cross-examined. The Discipline Committee refused to adjourn the hearing and the College proceeded to call evidence. Dr. Howatt was found guilty on all counts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the refusal of the adjournment was a denial of natural justice. The application was allowed and the decision quashed.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Adjournment of hearing – Standard of review – Reasonableness Howatt v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 138, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 21, 2003, Carnwath, Whalen and MacDougall ...

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal of a B.C. Court of Appeal decision setting aside the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court which quashed a school board resolution declining to approve three books depicting same-sex parented families as supplementary learning resources for use in kindergarten/grade one classrooms. The majority concluded that the School Board’s decision was unreasonable in the context of the educational scheme laid down by the legislature. The question whether the books should be approved as supplementary learning resources was remanded to the Board’s consideration according to the criteria laid out in the curriculum guidelines and the broad principles of tolerance and non-sectarianism underlying the School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – School boards – Powers and duties – Selection of books – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] S.C.J. No. 87, Supreme Court of Canada, December 20, 2002, McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. ...

Alberta Report appealed a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Panel (the “Panel”) made pursuant to s. 33 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980 1980, c-H-11.7. The principal issue on appeal concerned the extent to which the Panel could take notice of evidence introduced before other tribunals and whether in this instance the Panel violated the Appellant’s right to know the case to be met. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted back to the Panel for rehearing.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Evidence of other tribunals – Judicial notice Alberta Report v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 1539, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 10, 2002, Clark J. In the October 13, 1997 edition of its magazine, ...

A medical doctor appealed from the decision of an Inquiry Committee finding him guilty of infamous conduct and suspending him from the practice of medicine. The court refused to interfere with the Committee’s finding on credibility and the appeal was not allowed. In reviewing the Committee’s decision on penalty, the court took a deferential approach and did not overturn the ruling of the highly specialized tribunal.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Fairness – Evidence – Sentencing – Judicial review – Appeal process – Scope of appeal M.M. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2833, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 4, 2002, Bauman J. M.M., a medical doctor, ...