The court overturned the decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) who ordered a government agency, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (the “MPAC”), to provide a collection agency with an electronic record containing personal information of Ontario residents as the Commissioner erred in finding that there was legislation that expressly authorized the MPAC to disclose information for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (the “MFIPPA”)

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Electronic records – Municipalities – Property assessment – Statutory interpretation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 2118, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 21, 2004, Benotto, Dunn and ...

On an application for judicial review of a decision of a Human Rights Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), the court found that the Commissioner erred in law in finding gender discrimination against the complainant with respect to her rate of pay as a summer police constable. However, the court found that the Commissioner’s decision that the complainant was discriminated against in employment on the basis of gender was supported by the evidence and there was therefore no reviewable error with respect to that issue.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Burden of proof – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter DeWare v. Kensington (Town), [2004] P.E.I.J. No. 40, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 28, 2004, Matheson J. The ...

The Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board (the “Committee”) did not err in holding that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Secretary of the Prince Albert Board of Revision (the “Board”) since the decision of the Secretary was a decision of the Board within the meaning of section 260 of the Urban Municipality Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Municipal boards – Property assessment – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Jurisdiction Prince Albert (City) v. Riocan Holdings Inc., [2004] S.J. No. 337, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, May 17, 2004, Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Lane JJ.A. A taxpayer filed a notice of appeal of an assessment with the Secretary ...

An appeal pursuant to section 40(8) of the Mineral Tenure Act was allowed as the court found that the Chief Gold Commissioner erred in finding that there had not been a good faith attempt by the Appellant to comply with the staking requirements of the Act with respect to his mining claim and the Appellant’s non-compliance did not have a tendency to mislead

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Mining leases – Gold Commissioner – Staking requirements – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Compliance with legislation Tyerman v. Kreft, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1016, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 19, 2004, E.R.A. Edwards J. The Appellant brought an appeal pursuant to section 40(8) of the Mineral Tenure ...

An adjudicator’s decision which confirmed a driving prohibition under the Motor Vehicle Act was set aside on the basis that the adjudicator erred in relying on a Report to Crown Counsel which did not form part of a sworn or affirmed report from a peace officer, as required by the Act

Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness Neill v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1197, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 10, 2004, Cullen J. The Petitioner sought a review of an ...

An appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers was dismissed as the court found that the Committee’s decision was reasonable, it had jurisdiction to deal with discipline matters arising out of conduct which occurred before the College came into existence, and the delay involved did not amount to abuse of process

Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Delay – Jurisdiction of tribunal Bhadauria v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2004] O.J. No. 2468, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 9, ...

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was entitled to assume jurisdiction over a complaint brought by a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers who alleged that their union’s modification of a collective agreement with the Province of Quebec discriminated against them. The Tribunal was entitled to hear the complaint despite a provision in the Quebec Labour Code requiring that every grievance be submitted to arbitration.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaint – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Charter of Rights – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – ...

The court held that the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal had erred by accepting jurisdiction to decide an issue of alleged discrimination in an application of the Income Security Act, when the legislature had confirmed exclusive jurisdiction on a different tribunal, the Commission des Affaires Sociales (CAS), to hear appeals in respect of decisions made under the Act

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint under the Income Security Act – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Statutory powers Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Human Rights Tribunal), [2004] S.C.J. No. 35, Supreme Court of Canada, June ...

The Petitioner, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) had standing to bring the Petition since the enabling legislation separated the investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions of the APEGBC. The clear purpose of the Act was to establish the independence and impartiality of the three functions. The Petitioner was not seeking to recover judgment against itself; rather it was seeking a determination of the correctness of a ruling made by a statutorily created panel with distinct functions and responsibilities. However, the court could not conclude that the panel’s decision represented an error on the face of the record.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Governance – Functions of a self-governing body – Discipline committee decisions – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Certiorari Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia v. Visser, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1053, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 25, 2004, Cullen J. The APEGBC sought, ...

The court declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...