The applicant objected to appearing at a hearing to determine whether his name should be entered on the Child Abuse Register, arguing he was not a compellable witness and the Ministry had not met its disclosure obligations. His application was dismissed, as section 11 of the Charter did not apply to a witness in civil proceeding. Section 7 applied but was not infringed because it was done in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Stinchcombe disclosure obligations do not apply to the Crown in such proceedings.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Hearings – Compellability of witness – Disclosure – Child abuse registers Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. D.J.M., [2002] N.S.J. No. 119, Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Family Division), March 4, 2002, Hood J. The Ministry of Community Services sought to have the name of D.J.M. placed on ...

A police constable’s application for certiorari of Chair of the Scotia Police Review Board to extend time to complete an investigation was dismissed. Correctness is the standard of review for interpreting the regulation as permitting an extension after the investigation was complete. Patent unreasonableness is the standard respecting his findings and exercise of discretion in granting the extension.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness test – Patent unreasonableness – Questions of jurisdiction – Extension of time – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Privative clauses Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2002] N.S.J. No. 112, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, February 8, 2002, Moir J. Constable Symington was the subject ...

The Applicant police officer appealed from the decision of the Saskatchewan Police Commission (the “Commission”) which found the Applicant guilty of discreditable conduct and imposed a disciplinary penalty. The court made an order in the nature of certiorari and set aside the decision of the Police Commission because the Commissioner failed to comply with the imperative procedural requirements of the Police Act.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Statutory powers – Remedies – Certiorari – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Privative clauses Selinger v. Saskatchewan (Police Commission), [2002] S.J. No. 95, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, February 5, 2002, Kyle, J. The Commission made an order on May 22, 2001, dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the ...

A member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) sought judicial review of the Registrar’s decision to amend a Notice of Hearing after the hearing commenced. The application was dismissed as it was premature since the discipline panel had not been given an opportunity to decide if it would hear the new charges.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – Amendment of notice of hearing – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings Henderson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2001] O.J. No. 5367, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 22, 2001, Then, J. A discipline panel of the College accepted jurisdiction over ...

The City of Toronto applied to the court to have a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (the “Board”) set aside. The Board had determined that a City by-law was illegal. In granting the City’s petition, the court held that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine the legislative competency of a municipality.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Municipal boards – Questions of jurisdiction – Change of by-laws Toronto City v. Goldlist Properties Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 601, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 20, 2002, Blair, Day and Marchand, JJ. Counsel for the City of Toronto (the “City”) adopted bylaw no. 147-1999 which amended the metropolitan Toronto official plan. ...

An Application for Judicial Review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board was dismissed. The Court held that the evidence upon which Appeal Division based its decision was sufficient to support its decision.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – National Parole Board hearings Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), (2001) F.C.J. No. 1089, Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, July 4, 2001, Nadon, J. The Plaintiff (“Cartier”) was serving a 15-year term of imprisonment for manslaughter. The parole board ordered that he be kept in custody ...

The Information Commissioner issued two subpoenas compelling the Deputy Minister of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (the “CIC”) to produce records. The Attorney General’s application to set aside the subpoenas was granted on jurisdictional basis.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Questions of jurisdiction – Correctness test – Access to information – Production of records – Extension of time – Investigative bodies – Powers Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), [2002] F.C.J. No. 177, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, February 6, 2002, Kelen, J. In ...

The Applicant, the Ontario Conference of Judges (the “Association”), sought an order quashing and setting aside the decision of the Respondent (Government of Ontario), which rejected and failed to implement recommendations of the remuneration commission. The application was dismissed. The Court held that the decision of the Respondent met the “rationality test”.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness test – Simple rationality – Remuneration of judges Ontario Judges Association v. Ontario (Chair, Management Board), [2002] O.J. No. 533, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 15, 2002, O’Driscoll, Then and Dunnet, JJ. The Fourth Triennial Remuneration Commission (the “Commission”) was established to review the ...

The Appellant, a retired marine engineer applied for judicial review of a decision of the Workers Compensation Board (“WCB”). The appeal was dismissed. The BC Court of Appeal held that a decision of the Workers Compensation Review board was a recommendation rather than a directive and that the WCB’s procedure on re-examining the case was fair.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Procedural fairness – Privative clauses Clouston v. British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board), [2002] B.J.C. No. 353, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 21, 2002, Rowles, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A. The Appellant worked for many years as a marine engineer with the Canadian Coast Guard. During his employment with the ...