Dentist seeks judicial review of College’s actions in negotiating, entering into, and enforcing a settlement agreement with him due to the fact that he was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time

19. November 2015 0
Dentist sought judicial review of College’s actions in negotiating, entering into, and enforcing a settlement agreement with him as he was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time. In the alternative, he sought an order converting the petition to a Supreme Court action. No relief was available in the circumstances under the Judicial Review Procedure ...

The Applicant, a lawyer who had been disciplined and disbarred, applied to the court for relief given the Law Society’s unwillingness to direct his application for readmission to the Law Society to the Admissions Committee due to costs owed to the Law Society

21. August 2015 0
A lawyer was disciplined and disbarred, and the costs of the disciplinary hearing were ordered against him. He did not pay the costs and later declared bankruptcy and was subsequently discharged. Several years later he applied for readmission to the Law Society. The Law Society said his application could not be considered by the Admissions ...

Trinity Western University applied for judicial review after the Law Society denied their application for accreditation as a Law School

21. August 2015 0
After the Law Society Benchers denied Trinity Western University’s (‘TWU’) application for the accreditation of its proposed law school, TWU applied for judicial review, arguing in part that the Law Society should only have considered whether the school could produce competent lawyers, and not broader public interest factors, when making the decision. The court held ...

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner issued a notice to produce records to a university, demanding that it provide copies of all documents that fell under the complainant’s request, including those over which the university asserted solicitor-client privilege. Authority to do so was said to be provided by s. 56(3) of FOIPPA. The Court of Appeal held that the principles of strict interpretation needed to be applied to s. 56(3), and upon that application, it was clear that the provision did not confer authority upon the Commissioner to require disclosure of records from a public body that were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The language of the provision was not clear or explicit enough to warrant an override of privilege, which is essential to our legal system and the administration of justice.

26. May 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Privacy commissioner – Universities – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure of records – Public body – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Correctness University of Calgary v. J.R., [2015] A.J. No. 348, ...

In overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that where a court reviews a decision of a specialized administrative tribunal (such as a human rights tribunal), the standard of review must be determined on the basis of administrative law principles, whether the review is conducted in the context of an application for judicial review or of a statutory appeal. The SCC also determined that while the correctness standard of review applied to one aspect of the tribunal’s decision (the scope of the state’s duty of religious neutrality), the reasonableness standard applied to the other aspects of the decision, including whether or not the complainant had been discriminated against. In her concurring judgment, Abella J. was concerned with the majority’s use of different standards of review for different aspects of the tribunal’s decision. She said that extricating the question of the state’s duty of religious neutrality from the other aspects of the tribunal’s decision regarding the discrimination analysis directly conflicts with the jurisprudence and creates another confusing caveat to the Dunsmuir framework.

26. May 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Municipalities – By-laws – Human Rights – Discrimination – Religion – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Damages Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), [2015] S.C.J. No. ...

Lawyer was suspended after not satisfying Law Society’s requirement to complete 12 CPD hours per year. Lawyer challenged the validity of the CPD rules on the basis that the Law Society did not have authority to enact the mandatory rules, and the rules violate the rules of natural justice because they give the Law Society the authority to enact a suspension without a hearing or right of appeal. The court was satisfied that the powers set out in the Legal Profession Act are broad enough to allow for the creation of a mandatory CPD program, and held that the rules, with the penalty of a suspension, are procedurally proportionate to the gravity of the non-compliance offence. The court found that a disciplinary hearing process, such as the kind that accompanies allegations of professional misconduct, is not necessary in CPD non-compliance matters, and that the lack of a hearing and right of appeal do not constitute breaches of the procedural fairness rules.

24. February 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Powers under legislation – Self-governing professions – Rules and by-laws – Barristers and solicitors – Training requirements – Continuing Professional Development – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Public interest – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Green v. Law Society ...

Lawyer found guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer after he lost touch with his pro bono client and was unable to reach him when the plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion against him four years after an attempted mediation. The lawyer appealed the Law Society’s decision, but his appeal was dismissed.

24. February 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Professional misconduct – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Hesje v. Law Society of Saskatchewan, [2015] S.J. No. 2, 2015 SKCA 2, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, January 8, 2015, R.K. Ottenbreit, N.W. Caldwell and M.J. ...

Following an application made by a passenger who had an allergic reaction to a dog on an airplane, the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered Air Canada to develop and implement specific policies and procedures necessary to accommodate persons with dog allergies who are traveling on its airplanes. Air Canada appealed the Agency’s decision on the basis that it was denied procedural fairness. The court found that Air Canada was denied procedural fairness in that the Agency refused to consider its submissions on a number of crucial issues. The matter was returned to the Agency for reconsideration.

24. February 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Transportation Agency – Human rights complaints – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Policies – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Air Canada v. Greenglass, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1286, 2014 FCA 288, Federal Court of Appeal, December 9, 2014, Nadon, Gauthier and Scott ...

The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the applicant physician’s judicial review application regarding a preliminary decision made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the matter since it found that the complainant had adequate alternative remedies available to him under the Medical Act and failed to exhaust those before seeking judicial review. In respect of an evidentiary issue that was raised at the outset, the Court ruled that letters of complaint from patients underlying the proceedings between the College and the physician were inadmissible in the judicial review record because they were protected by privacy and privilege as per section 71.2(2) of the Medical Act.

25. November 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – admissibility – Remedies – Alternative remedies Cockeram v. College of Physicians ...