Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

Alex Smith discusses a case involving statutory deadlines for discipline committees to release their written decisions and reasons.

Alex Smith provides an overview of the CJC's Guidelines for the Use of AI in Canadian Courts.

Emma Gardiner discusses two cases relating to OHIP billing which consider the admission and use of expert evidence before administrative tribunals.

Gavin Fior discusses the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in <em>York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario</em>, 2024 SCC 22 and its impact on privacy rights and professional regulation.

Nancy Bediako reviews recent case law and systemic problems regarding the Thunder Bay Police Services' investigations involving Indigenous Canadians in this second article of a two-part series.

Nancy Bediako reviews recent case law and systemic problems regarding the Thunder Bay Police Services' investigations involving Indigenous Canadians.

In September 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada took the opportunity to further clarify the standard of review following the seminal case: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. As discussed below, the Court made it clear that reasonableness is the default standard, and correctness will only arise in limited situations.

On December 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released a decision mandating that administrative decision-makers account for Charter values (as well as or instead of Charter rights) in their rulings whether bidden or unbidden by the parties before them.

Mr. Khorsand applied for judicial review of the Toronto Police Service Board’s background check after multiple failures as he sought employment as a Special Constable with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. The Board refused to give Mr. Khorsand the reasons for the failed checks even though he has no prior criminal convictions or charges.  After accessing police records that confirmed this, he challenged the Board’s decision by seeking Judicial Review of the Divisional Court.

Before advising clients to commence a judicial review of an administrative decision, it is important to verify that all administrative processes have been exhausted. This principle comes from an administrative law rule known by multiple names, including the doctrine of exhaustion, the rule against interlocutory judicial reviews, and the objection against premature judicial reviews (hereinafter referred to as the “Doctrine of Exhaustion”). 

In Ontario (Premier) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Public Order Emergency Commission) the Federal Court  provides a useful analysis of the application and scope of parliamentary privilege, in particular with respect to testimonial immunity.

Ms. Patchette appealed the decision made by the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”), finding that the appellant was not catastrophically impaired pursuant to sec. 3.1 (1) 2 iii of the STATUTORY ACCIDENTS BENEFITS SCHEDULE O reg 34/10 (“SABS”). This was the first time that sec. 3.1(1)2 iii of the Sabs was considered by LAT. The Appeal concerned the interpretation and application of s. 3.1(1) 2 iii of SABS, specifically the meaning of “permanent and serious.”

A recent appeal from a judgment of the Small Claims Court raised an interesting question as to how fence disputes are to be resolved in the City of Toronto, although it left the answer to this question to be determined at a later date. 

In November 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in <em>Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks</em>. The decision upholds the status quo established in <em>Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) </em>(an earlier Supreme Court decision) regarding the applicable appellate standard of review when the first instance court is tasked with determining the applicable standard of review. 

In this year’s Annual Update on Judicial Review, held on October 18, 2021, the Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal, and Professor Paul Daly, University of Ottawa, discussed recent cases and developments in the administrative law jurisprudence across Canada. The event was chaired by Dina Awad and Jillian Siskind of the OBA Administrative Law Section Executive. This summary of the lively discussion is categorized into six themes, following the structure and flow of the event.

In this case, decided by the Supreme Court on May 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a legal right is required for a court to intervene in a decision of a voluntary association, and found that whether such a legal right exists must be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

In The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. the Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Federal Court (2020 FC 770), which had found that section 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the “Act”) and section 159.3 of the Regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the “Regulations”), infringed section 7 of the Charter.

This decision of the Federal Court of Appeal involved two applications for judicial review challenging the designation of four Jurisprudential Guides by the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). This decision provides instructive analysis with respect to the use of jurisprudential guides. 

<em>Association of Professional Engineers v Rew</em>  is an appeal to the Divisional Court by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the PEO) from a decision of a Discipline Panel of the PEO. This case demonstrates that quality of reasons can play an important role in determining whether an administrative decision should be upheld even where the reasons do permit review.