Sentences with phrase «review of administrative tribunals»

They do not, in other words, interfere with these courts» jurisdiction as it had been understood in the s. 96 jurisprudence, which has always been concerned with the removal of types of cases (e.g. judicial review of administrative tribunals) from the superior courts» purview.

Not exact matches

On LexisNexis Quicklaw, the secondary content includes the major encyclopaedias Halsburys Laws of Canada and Juris Classeur Quebec, as well as over 300 Canadian authored texts and treatises, an extensive collection of law reviews and journals, the Canada Digests and Classification System, Case and Statute Citators, and Words and Phrases, and in - depth collections of the cases of courts and administrative tribunals and legislation.

For example, if Law A says that courts may review all administrative tribunal decisions on questions of fact and law, and Law B says that in the context of Tribunal X, a court may only review a decision on questions of law, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statute.

We also represent employers before all levels of courts in wrongful dismissal actions, occupational health and safety matters, judicial reviews of decisions made by administrative tribunals and to obtain injunctive relief.

We offer broad experience in judicial review challenges before the Administrative Court and other courts and tribunals (including the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the Information Tribunal and the Court of First Instance as well as the European Courts).

[2] Elizabeth Bernard is the protagonist in a legal odyssey which has found its way through three administrative tribunal proceedings, two rounds of judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal and now an appeal to this Court.

Administrative law as a practice area sometimes gets a bad rap for being comprised of Byzantine rules of procedure (often completely unique to the specific tribunal in question), frustrating decision makers, and shifting standards of review.

The Court decided that (a) the process of surcharging by administrative bodies engaged the criminal part of Article 6 and (b) the Austrian courts hearing appeals against the surcharges did not have the jurisdiction to carry out a «full review» of the decision to surcharge; only that way could one turn the combination of administrative decision and court decision into a decision by a «tribunal» complying with Article 6.

Tagged with: administrative law administrative tribunals Chevron correctness standard deference Dunsmuir public law reasonableness reasonableness standard standard of review statutory interpretation

In addition to his experience acting for and before administrative tribunals, Michael is a past law clerk to a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, and is the co-author of the legal reference text Standards of Review of Federal Administrative Tribunals, published byadministrative tribunals, Michael is a past law clerk to a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, and is the co-author of the legal reference text Standards of Review of Federal Administrative Tribunals, published by Butttribunals, Michael is a past law clerk to a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, and is the co-author of the legal reference text Standards of Review of Federal Administrative Tribunals, published byAdministrative Tribunals, published by ButtTribunals, published by Butterworths.

Acted for professionals before administrative tribunals, including Human Rights Tribunal, the Health Professions Review Board, the College of Dental Surgeons, the Hospital Appeal Board, the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and the Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing Board.

This case raises challenging questions about the proper constitutional role of courts, their appropriate function on judicial review, and the relationship between administrative tribunals and the judiciary.

A constitutional challenge to the application of FIPPA to administrative tribunals was recently made by the Toronto Star, who claimed in Toronto Star v. AG Ontario to have some difficulty obtaining a schedule of hearings in advance, or reviewing Adjudicative Records following the conclusion of the hearing.

The court decided to review Issues 2, 3, 5 and 6 on a «deferential standard of reasonableness,» but applied correctness to Issues 1 and 4: «While I acknowledge that in the administrative law context a tribunal may develop its own procedures as to admissibility without the recognized strictures found in the judicial rules of evidence, whereas issues # 1 and # 4 principally involve specific questions of law and concurrent issues involving breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness, I will apply a standard of correctness.

There are interesting and useful things in there about the standard of review on procedural fairness where an administrative tribunal is reconsidering a decision, and about the interaction between decisions of the Provincial Court and administrative tribunals.

We advise and represent unions and workers on all labour relations and workplace issues at the B.C. Labour Relations Board, grievance arbitrations and mediation, collective bargaining, administrative tribunals, judicial reviews and appeals, and in all levels of court.

Judicial Review is the process whereby a judge of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviews the decision of an administrative board or tribunal.

On the other hand, all of the statutes clearly refer to an appeal so that it could be argued that the problem was created by the Supreme Court in Dr. Q. when it held that appeals from administrative tribunals should be considered on the same standard as judicial review.

In British Columbia, standard of review issues are regulated by the Administrative Tribunals Act: correctness review is provided for in respect of some questions (including procedural ones); deferential review in respect of others (including exercises of discretion).

The firm has a diverse public and administrative law practice, which includes acting before and on behalf of provincial and federal administrative tribunals in judicial review proceedings, administrative appeals, and constitutional challenges.

She has acted as counsel for hospitals, nurses, physicians and other health practitioners at inquests, civil trials, various levels of courts and administrative tribunals, including the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

A leading participant in the Firm's Class Actions Group, Cindy appears before all levels of court and various administrative tribunals, including the Consent and Capacity Board, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, and the Human Rights Tribunal.

[4] I discuss this issue in Peter A. Gall, «Judicial Review of Labour Tribunals: A Functional Approach» (1979) in Proceedings of the Administrative Law Conference (Vancouver: UBC Faculty of Law, 1979)[Gall, «Functional Approach»].

The Divisional Court, a branch of the Superior Court of Justice, is the principal forum for judicial review of government action and also hears statutory and some civil appeals from a broad range of administrative tribunals in Ontario.

Bluntly stated, yet with great respect; the law has spent more than forty years looking for the true jurisdictional question, twenty years trying to assess the relative expertise of tribunals, ten years trying to convince everyone of a meaningful distinction between two deferential standards of review and now another possible lifetime wandering the administrative galaxy looking for questions of law of central importance to the legal system.

The administrative law issue in Capilano concerns the Edmonton assessment review board, a statutory tribunal empowered by Part 11 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M - 26 to hear complaints from city taxpayers on their property assessments, typically arguing the assessed value is too high and should be reduced by the Board.

Michael has appeared as co-counsel on a number of judicial reviews or appeals from decisions of the administrative tribunals, including decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board, the Ontario College of Pharmacists, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Ontario Securities Commission

Expertise arises from the specialization of functions of administrative tribunals like the Board which have a habitual familiarity with the legislative scheme they administer: ``... in many instances, those working day to day in the implementation of frequently complex administrative schemes have or will develop a considerable degree of expertise or field sensitivity to the imperatives and nuances of the legislative regime» (Dunsmuir, at para. 49, quoting D. J. Mullan, «Establishing the Standard of Review: The Struggle for Complexity?»

Chris has argued matters before the Superior and Divisional Court, and has appeared as counsel before a number of administrative tribunals and boards including the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Ministry of Labour, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, the Office of the Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board (now known as the Social Security Tribunal).

In addressing the standard of review, the court noted the Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 45 did not apply, as APEG's governing statute did not refer to it.

Don has represented clients before the B.C. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Health Professions Review Board, and other administrative boards and tribunals.

Smith v. Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland2006 SLT 347 Outer House; Judicial Review of administrative decision re failure to fix a tribunal hearing within a mandatory time limit.

First, «because of their expertise and familiarity with the relevant administrative scheme, tribunals may in many cases be well positioned to help the reviewing court reach a just outcome» (at para. 53).

WCAT interpreted the common law power to reopen an appeal to cure a jurisdictional defect as «authority to set aside one of its decisions», and considered the standard of review set out in s. 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) applicable.

More specifically, they are seeking declarations that Québec could not, consistently with section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, grant its provincial court exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases where the amount at issue is more than $ 10 000 or any powers of judicial review over provincial administrative tribunals, because these powers are reserved for federally - appointed judges.

The «conservatives» who are skeptical of judicial review of legislation, especially on Charter grounds, rally under «the Diceyan banner» — which is also «a flag of hostility to the administrative state» — and thus don't like courts to defer to the decisions of administrative agencies and tribunals.

Save where the constitutional validity of a law is frontally attacked, in which case the administrative tribunal's conclusions will be subject to correctness review, as in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013] 1 SCR 467.

On issues such as the content of the record on judicial review applications, the extent to which administrative decision - makers can participate in judicial reviews of their decisions, superior court review of federal prison decisions and tribunals» capacity to reconsider their decisions, Canadian courts have recently come under pressure to update the procedural law to bring it into line with the substantive law.

Tribunals v courts Under TCEA an Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC) was established on 1 November 2007 to replace the Council on Tribunals but with an expanded remit to keep the whole landscape of administrative justiceAdministrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC) was established on 1 November 2007 to replace the Council on Tribunals but with an expanded remit to keep the whole landscape of administrative justiceadministrative justice under review.

Powerline Plus Ltd. v. Ontario Energy Board 2013 ONSC 6720 Administrative Law — Boards and tribunals — Judicial review — Standard of review Powerline Plus Ltd. and Langley Utilities Contracting Ltd. appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board.

PRACTICE DIRECTION — FILING ELECTRONIC VERSIONS OF DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT Effective: November 2, 2012 Preamble This Practice Direction sets out the procedures to be followed by parties filing electronic versions of documents in civil appeals, including appeals from administrative tribunals, and judicial review applications in the Divisional CourOF DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT Effective: November 2, 2012 Preamble This Practice Direction sets out the procedures to be followed by parties filing electronic versions of documents in civil appeals, including appeals from administrative tribunals, and judicial review applications in the Divisional REVIEW APPLICATIONS IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT Effective: November 2, 2012 Preamble This Practice Direction sets out the procedures to be followed by parties filing electronic versions of documents in civil appeals, including appeals from administrative tribunals, and judicial review applications in the Divisional Courof documents in civil appeals, including appeals from administrative tribunals, and judicial review applications in the Divisional review applications in the Divisional Court.

Some philosophical reflections, courtesy of Justice Martineau: [92] The legal explanation for allowing two [differing] interpretations of the law, if reasonable, to stand is simply that courts must respect the legislator's intention that such types of administrative decisions, which are protected by a privative clause, be not reviewed unless the tribunal has -LSB-...] Read more

It covers the way Canadian courts can review the decisions of administrative decision - makers, including administrative tribunals, boards, and commissions.

Justice Ashcroft noted that in Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc, 2015 SCC 44 (CanLII), the Court reviewed the law regarding tribunal participation and emphasized the relevant expertise and familiarity of the Tribunal with the applicable administrative regime (McIver, at para 15).

It reflects the strength of their academic background and its first three sections provide an impeccable — and very balanced — review of reforms to administrative justice and changes to tribunals in England and Wales; advances in e-government leading to the creation of the Government Digital Service (GDS) and (understandably, rather more sketchily) the major developments in ODR.