A mutual fund salesperson and his company (“Gill”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission’s finding that Gill had contravened certain provisions of the Securities Act. The main issue before the British Columbia Court of Appeal was whether it was reasonable for the Commission to have found that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements issued by Gill were securities within the meaning of the term “evidence of indebtedness” contained in section 1 of the Securities Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission’s findings were reasonable, and in accord with the purpose of the Securities Act.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Evidence – Jurisdiction British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Gill, [2003] B.C.J. No. 587, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 19, 2003, Rowles, Ryan and Thackray JJ.A. Gill argued that the Commission, in holding that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements were securities, had ...

The Federal Court Trial Division struck Treaty Seven First Nations’ application for judicial review of the introduction to Parliament of Bill C-7, First Nations Governance Act. Treaty Seven alleged that the Bill was introduced to Parliament without full and meaningful consultation with the First Nation members of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations and the Confederacy of Treaty Seven First Nations and, as such, sought orders in nature of certiorari and mandamus.

Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Legislation – Government’s duty to consult – Procedural requirements – Judicial review application – No reasonable cause of action Treaty Seven First Nations v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 464, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, March 20, 2003, Gibson J. The Attorney-General of Canada brought an application ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia succeeded on its appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to set aside the order of the appeal judge’s decision overturning an Inquiry Committee’s finding of fact leading to a conviction for infamous conduct. The court held that the proper standard of review for findings of fact was reasonableness.

Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Suspensions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] S.C.J. No. 18, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, ...

The Law Society of New Brunswick succeeded on its appeal in having the findings of the Court of Appeal set aside and the sanction of disbarment of a lawyer who had been found to have committed professional misconduct reinstated

Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Disbarment – Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.J. No. 17, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ. The respondent, Mr. ...

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (the “AOCP”) was unsuccessful in its appeal of decisions made by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had a statutory authority to “stand in the shoes” of the Marketing Commission and was entitled, on a review of a Commission decision, to establish specific pricing formulas and to order the Commission to amend its regulation to implement such pricing formulas.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Assn. of Ontario Chicken Processors v. Ontario (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal), [2003] O.N. No. 330, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 31, 2003, Blair, Carnwath and J. ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...

Kings County succeeded in its appeal of a decision by the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board, which had overturned a decision of the Municipal Council to enter into a Development Agreement allowing a property owner to carry on an excavation business in an area not zoned for that activity. The court found that the Board did not consider the appropriate issue of whether the Development Agreement carried out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy and instead, based its decision on improper factors, including complaints of nuisance by neighbouring landholders.

Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Utility and Review Board – Jurisdiction Kings (County) v. Lutz, [2003] N.S.J. No. 56, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, February 18, 2003, Glube C.J.N.S., Chipman and Saunders JJ.A. Robert Parker carried on an excavation business from his residence in Kings County. His father had carried on ...

An owner of property (“Price Club”) was unsuccessful in its appeal of a decision of the Assessment Appeals Committee restoring a reassessment of the property by the Assessor which had increased the assessed value of the property by almost $1,000,000. The court held that the Assessor had properly calculated the property’s market adjustment factor and the decision to change the classification of the building for assessment purposes was appropriate and fell within the broad discretion granted to the Assessor.

Administrative law – Municipalities – Property assessment – Appeals – Market adjustment factor Price Club Canada Real Estate Inc. v. Regina (City), [2003] S.J. No. 80, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, February 4, 2003, Bayda C.J.S., Tallis and Jackson JJ.A This appeal concerns a 1999 assessment of Price Club’s property located at 665 University Park Drive ...

An employee of the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s was unsuccessful in her application to set aside the decision of the Human Rights Commission not to refer her complaint to a board of inquiry. The Court held that the Commission exercised its administrative screening function in a reasonable manner. The legislative scheme in the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14 required the Court to show considerable deference to a decision of the Human Rights Commission. While it may have been preferable for the Commission to have provided fuller reasons, it was under no statutory obligation to do so. The reasons given by the Commission adequately indicated to the employee that, following a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, her complaint did not meet the Commission’s threshold level for referring the matter to a board of inquiry.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Evidence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness Spurrell v. Newfoundland (Human Rights Commission), [2003] N.J. No. 53, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, February 25, 2003, Adams J. An employee of ...

Although job related information pertaining to RCMP officers: (a) the list of historical postings, their status and date, (b) the list of ranks and the dates they achieved those ranks, (c) their years of service, and (d) their anniversary date of service, constituted “personal information” as defined under s.3 of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.-P-21, it should nonetheless be disclosed because it fell within the “position or functions of the individual exception” under s.3(j). The information did not reveal anything about the competence or divulge any personal opinion given outside the course of employment, but rather provided information relevant to understanding the functions performed by the officers.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Exceptions – Federal employees – Personal information – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2003] S.C.J. No. 7, Supreme Court of Canada, March 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and ...