Articles 2019

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the Law Society’s holding that it is professional misconduct to make allegations of prosecutorial misconduct or that impugn the integrity of opposing counsel, unless the allegations are made in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

In the recent decision of Truman v Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 472, the Divisional Court reversed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, which had refused to award a member costs of a stayed discipline proceeding. In so doing, the Court also confirmed that it has the jurisdiction to award costs to a member for an unwarranted Discipline Committee hearing.

The environmental assessment process can be long and complicated for investors seeking approval of a proposed project. If the investment is not approved, the investor may lose a considerable amount of money. But for foreign investors, the outlook is much rosier since the decision of a NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) arbitration panel in the spring of 2015 in a case called Bilcon of Delaware et al v Government of Canada.

2015 Ontario Division Court administrative law case summaries: Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Ontario v. De Lottinville, Guarantee Co. of North America v. Do, Simser v. Aviva Canada Inc., Li v. Novopharm Ltd., Aiken v. Ottawa Police Services Board, Solomon v. Levy, Bart v. McMaster University...

2015 administrative law case summaries from the Supreme Court of Canada: Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General)

This article recounts the October 28, 2015 OBA Administrative Law Section Program - Annual Update on Judicial Review. The program was moderated by Soussanna Karas and featured Justice David Stratus and Professor Paul Daly.

This paper explores four topics in connection with evidentiary rules that operate differently in the administrative as compared to the civil context: 1) the ability to compel testimony; 2) the limited protection against subsequent use of testimony gathered during the investigation stage at hearings; 3) the use of hearsay evidence; and 4) the expanding requirement on respondents to ‘disclose’ their defence to Staff prosecutors in advance of hearings and the resulting defence challenges.

On June 8, 2015, the OBA’s Administrative Law Section presented “Tribunal Check-Up: The Status of our Adjudicative Tribunals” at the section’s Annual Meeting. The speakers each delivered an illuminating speech relating to current challenges and new developments within adjudicative tribunals, with a focus on positive change.

On April 22, 2015, Susheel Gupta, Vice-Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) led an informative discussion in Ottawa about the differences in litigating before courts and tribunals. The panel consisted of Michelle Flaherty, Member of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), Laura Little, Counsel to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) and Lucia Shatat, Senior Legal Advisor to the Competition Tribunal.

The Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators (SOAR) has now published its study of the Ontario government’s new 10-year limit on the years of service that members of the Province's adjudicative tribunals will be allowed to serve and of the near-term implications of that policy. Ron Ellis notes, "It is apparent from the SOAR study that if the government persists in the implementation of its cap policy, large elements of the administrative justice system will be effectively broken."