SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64 Date: Docket: SYD No Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service) Applicant Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Murray Heard: December 8, 2015, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: January 18, 2016 Subject: Issues: Result: Judicial Review The Applicant sought a review of the decision of the Income Assistance Appeal Board finding that she did not qualify for orthodontic work as a special need. It was submitted by her dentist that she required these services to alleviate pain and associated jaw problems. The grounds for Judicial Review were: 1) the Board s decision was unreasonable; 2) the Board erred in law and in its application of the Employment and Income Assistance Act and Regulations; 3) the Appeal Board s findings were unreasonable in light of the evidence. Under the Regulations the Board had authority to seek advice from an expert to resolve a question before them. Regulation 24A(1)(3)(b), and 25(1) permitted the Department to seek out

2 and accept the dental consultant s opinion in deciding that the services sought were not a viable medical procedure. The weighing of evidence by the Board was entitled to deference. The decision reached was within the range of possible outcomes and was not unreasonable. The Application for Judicial Review was dismissed. Cases cited: McIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2012 NSCA 106; Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), [2011] 3. S.C.R. 708; Worth v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2014 NSSC 366; Employment Support and Income Assistance Act, 2000, c.27, s.2; Casino Nova Scotia v. NSLRB, 2009 NSCA 4; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

3 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2015 NSSC 64 Date: Docket: SYD No Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service) Applicant Respondent Judge: Heard: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Murray December 8, 2015, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: January 18, 2016 Counsel: Jainey Lee Bresson, self-represented Applicant Debbie Brown for the Respondent, Department

4 Page 2 By the Court: Introduction [1] The Applicant, Ms. Bresson, is in receipt of income assistance. She suffers from pain and other problems associated with her jaw and teeth as a result of an assault. She made a request to the Department of Community Services for services that include orthodontic work as a special need. The Department handles such requests in administering the Income Assistance Program. [2] Ms. Bresson s request was denied by the Department. She appealed to the Income Assistance Appeals Board. The Board dismissed her appeal on the basis that the services requested were not medically appropriate, necessary or effective to deal with her problems. Instead, the Applicant was referred to an oral surgeon. [3] The Applicant seeks a judicial review of the Appeal Board s decision. The following are the grounds relied upon by Ms. Bresson. 1. The decision of the Appeal Board was not reasonable in light of the evidence before it. 2. The Appeal Board erred in applying the law and did not apply the statute or regulations correctly.

5 Page 3 3. The Appeal Board s findings of fact were unreasonable in light of the decision. [4] The Applicant seeks an Order reversing the decision of the Appeal Board. Statement of Facts The Facts As Found by the Appeal Tribunal and recorded in the decision are as follows: [5] The Appellant made a request for dental services which are not identified under the Employment Support and Income Assistance (ESIA) Policy that pertains to the ESIA Dental Fee Guide. Only those dental services listed with procedure codes under the Dental Fee Guide are approved items as Special Needs that can be provided by the ESIA Program. [6] Department of Community Services received an Essential Medical Form from physicians with whom the Appellant had consulted in hopes of having her medical issues resolved. The recommendations of the physicians who had filed Essential Medical Treatment (EMT) forms were reviewed by the Department of Community Services individually. In each instance, the Department of Community Services officials determined that the certain stipulations as required

6 Page 4 in ESIA Regulations and/or ESIA Policy pertaining to the Appellant s request for services were not met, and, therefore, dismissed. [7] In one case the orthodontic request was made by the Appellant s physician Dr. Oei. As he is not a dentist, it was determined that his recommendation is outside the scope of his expertise. [8] In some cases, the Essential Medical Treatment (EMT) form was not forwarded or not accompanied with a treatment plan and the appropriate treatment codes; in another instance, an oral surgeon (Dr. Fay) had requested full orthodontic treatment and correction of occlusion with orthodontic surgery, but he failed to forward a treatment plan and the appropriate treatment codes. Eventually, the surgeon reviewed the Appellant s case further and determined that he misunderstood the purpose of the Appellant s visit. [9] The physician, in this case, indicated that his recommended procedures would be for cosmetic purposes only and would not benefit the Appellant s medical issues. He withdrew his recommendation for orthodontic procedures. [10] The Appellant s dentist, Dr. Knickle, had filled out an EMT form and had requested a full assessment by an orthodontic and oral maxillofacial surgeon. She

7 Page 5 also noted that orthodontics and corrective jaw surgery was needed for jaw malocclusion and temporomandibular disorder and not for aesthetics. [11] Dr. Adams, the dental advisor for the Department of Community Services through Quikcard, reviewed Dr. Knickle s documentation, and he also sought the opinion, advice, and recommendation from Dr. Morrison, an oral surgeon at the VG Hospital. Dr. Morrison had a familiarity with the Appellant s case history; he also possessed medical expertise in the treatment and issues that confront the Appellant. [12] Dr. Morrison did not recommend orthodontics as he didn t feel it would solve Ms. Bresson s medical issues. [13] As a result, following Dr. Adams communication with Dr. Morrison, Dr. Adams determined that orthodontal services did not support the medical appropriateness, necessity, and effectiveness of the requested service as required in ESIA Regulation 24A(1) 3b and Regulation 25. Respondent Department s Position [14] The Respondent is the Department of Community Services. The Department says the Court should not disturb the Assistance Appeal Board

8 Page 6 decision between the Department of Community Services and Jainey Lee Bresson dated August 22, [15] The Department s position is that the Assistance Appeal Board s decision falls within a range of possible outcomes based upon the evidence before the Board and its governing legislation. What is the applicable Standard of Review? [16] The standard of review in matters of income assistance appeals has been determined by jurisprudence. In the case of McIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2012 NSCA 106, the court held as follows and I adopt paragraphs of that decision: [22] I disagree that an administrative tribunal s interpretation of its home legislation generally attracts a correctness standard of review. In Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471, Justices LeBel and Cromwell for the Court said: In substance, if the issue relates to the interpretation and application of its own statute, is within its expertise and does not raise issues of general legal importance, the standard of reasonableness will generally apply and the Tribunal will be entitled to deference. In Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers Association, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654, Justice Rothstein for the majority said: [30] The narrow question in this case is: Did the inquiry automatically terminate as a result of the Commissioner extending the 90-day period only after the expiry of that period? This question involves the interpretation of s. 50(5) PIPA, a provision of the Commissioner s home statute. There is authority that [d]eference will usually result where a

9 Page 7 tribunal is interpreting its own statute or statutes closely connected to its function, with which it will have particular familiarity (Dunsmuir, at para. 54; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160, at para. 28, per Fish J.). This principle applies unless the interpretation of the home statute falls into one of the categories of questions to which the correctness standard continues to apply, i.e., constitutional questions, questions of law that are of central importance to the legal system as a whole and that are outside the adjudicator s expertise,... [q]uestions regarding the jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals [and] true questions of jurisdiction or vires (Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471, at para. 18, per LeBel and Cromwell JJ., citing Dunsmuir, at paras. 58, 60-61). To similar effect Celgene, para 34. [23] The Board s interpretation and application of the Employment Support and Income Assistance Act, and the regulations and policies under that Act - the Board s home legislation - would be entitled to deference, meaning a reasonableness standard, subject to the exceptions mentioned in these passages from Canadian Human Rights Commission and Alberta Teachers Association. Here, there is no constitutional issue, conflict or overlap between two tribunals, or issue of jurisdiction or vires. Had Ms. McIntyre submitted that the regulations were ultra vires the Act, that issue would be of central legal importance, not within the particular institutional expertise of the Board, and would be subject to correctness review. Ms. McIntyre does not suggest that the regulations are ultra vires. Her submissions are purely interpretive. [24] In the judicial review of the Board s decision, the reviewing court s standard to the Board s application of the Board s home legislation is reasonableness. [17] As in McIntyre, the issue in this appeal involves the interpretation of the Board s own statute or home legislation the Regulations under the Act. The exceptions to deference, mentioned in Canadian Human Rights Commission and Alberta Teachers Association, do not apply. The reviewing court s standard to the Board s decision is reasonableness.

10 Page 8 [18] This means the Court does not readily accept the tribunal s decision or necessarily impose its own view. Rather, the reviewing court shows respect for the Legislature s choice of a decision maker, by analyzing that tribunal s reasons to determine whether the result, factually and legally, occupies a range of possible outcomes. Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), [2011] 3. S.C.R. 708, paras 11, per Abella, J. for the Court. [19] The second ground of appeal herein stated the decision was incorrect in law. Reasonableness and not correctness is the appropriate standard and this Court will therefore apply the reasonableness standard to this judicial review. Analysis [20] The Applicant s family physician Dr. Oei completed the necessary form on behalf of the Applicant recommending that orthodontic be provided to Ms. Bresson. As a family physician, orthodontics is not his field of expertise. The Regulations require that the evaluation be given by a person within in the appropriate scope of work. [21] Dr. Fay, an oral surgeon also gave an opinion in writing which clearly stated that Ms. Bresson required these services. Through his office staff information was

11 Page 9 subsequently relayed (by from Aliesje MacInnis, November 14 th, 2014) that Dr. Fay had misunderstood the nature of Ms. Bresson s request and on reconsideration felt the services would be for cosmetic reasons and not medical reasons. [22] In the circumstances I think it would have been prudent for the Department to require a written letter from Dr. Fay to this effect, especially where he was rescinding his opinion. On balance however, I do not think receiving this information by was unreasonable. [23] Thirdly, Dr. Knickle gave a clear opinion as to the status of Ms. Bresson s medical problems. Dr. Knickle recommended full orthodontic work to alleviate her problems and went so far as to say it was not for cosmetic purposes. [24] Dr. Knickle s completion of the Essential Medical Treatment form was the third opinion, supporting Ms. Bressen s request, subject only to the reversal by Dr. Fay. [25] In its submission the Department of Community Services stated at this point it was confronted with conflicting medical information. Thus the need to consult with their dental advisor Dr. Adams. At paragraph 36 of its legal brief the Respondent submits:

12 Page 10 Recognizing there were conflicting opinions on the purpose and necessity of the requested treatment, Dr. Adams consulted with Dr. Morrison, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon with the VG Hospital, Dr. Morrison checked Ms. Bresson s condition. Dr. Adams did not support the request for orthodontic treatment as the medical evidence did not support the medical appropriateness, necessity and effectiveness of the requested treatment. The Department weighed the evidence and rejected Ms. Bresson s request for orthodontic treatment, but supported a referral to an oral surgeon. The Appeal Board Member also weighed all of the evidence and upheld the Department s decision. [26] The handwritten note by Dr. Adams at Tab 7 of the record is a critical piece of evidence on this review. It reads as follows: Jan. 23/15 I spoke to Dr. Morrison (Oral Surgeon) V.G. He checked Jainey s file and pointed out she had been there several times for different reasons. He also said that orthodontics usually not needed in Class III cases and rarely cause TMJ concerns. Also orthodontics is not guaranteed to help TMJ cases. [27] The Applicant argues in her brief that this handwritten note is what the Department relied upon to make its decision. This was not a medical report directly from Dr. Morrison. It was a handwritten note from the Department s medical advisor reporting on his conversation with Dr. Morrison. [28] The Applicant argues that the Department and the Appeal Board Member rejected the Essential Medical Treatment forms of Ms. Bresson s doctors, even though they were signed and dated, in favor of what is essentially second hand (hearsay) information of Dr. Adams and was not supported by any medical plan.

13 Page 11 [29] The Respondent Department submits it was not the note that was relied upon but rather the advice and recommendation by Dr. Adam s as evidenced by his signing off the bottom of the EMT form completed by Dr. Knickle. [30] The Respondent states as follows in their brief. Ms. Bresson submits the Department made their decision based on the handwritten note of Dr. Adams. This is incorrect. The Department based their decision on the advice and recommendations of Dr. Adams found in the bottom portion of the Request for Essential Medical Treatment form which completed by Dr. Knickle. Dr. Adams advised the requested treatment did not meet the criteria for coverage under the Special Considerations Policy and he recommended a referral to an oral surgeon only. [31] A close review of that part of the form reveals that Dr. Adams states, No. to the question of whether Ms. Bresson s requested treatment is recommended. No further details are given in the space provided on the form. [32] There are boxes which can be checked or ticked to indicate the reason for the denial. I note that the box stating that the services are medically inappropriate, unnecessary and ineffective, was not selected by Dr. Adams. [33] While this is a technical argument, the authority for the Department to seek advice from a person qualified is with respect to that very issue; the medical appropriateness, necessity, and effectiveness of an item of special need requested. Regulations 24(a) and 25(1) and (2) are attached as Appendix A.

14 Page 12 [34] This is repeated in subsection 25(2). Both sections 25(1) and (2) state that this advice must be taken into consideration in determining whether the item or service is a special need under section 24A. [35] This suggests to me that the Department of Community Services did rely on the information in the note of Dr. Adams, summarizing his conversation with Dr. Morrison. [36] Certainly, both in the analysis and in the conclusion the Appeal Board placed considerable weight on Dr. Morrison s advice and or opinion. [37] In the analysis Mr. Beaton in the Appeal Board s decision stated: Dr. Knickle s recommendation was processed by way of the ESIA Essential Medical Policy which included a review of all of Dr. Knickle s EMT documentation regarding Ms. Bresson s condition. This review was carried out by Dr. Adams, a dental consultant from Quikcard. Dr. Adams as part of the review chose to speak with Dr. Morrison, an oral surgeon at the VG Hospital, to seek his expert advice/opinion and well as to seek any recommendations regarding the best medical manner in which to proceed in the case of Ms. Bresson. Dr. Morrison was familiar with case history of the Appellant as she was seen several times at the VG in the past. Dr. Morrison with expertise in the filed dealt with Ms. Bresson s medical issues stated that he would not recommend orthodontics; he felt that orthodontics would not solve the Appellant s medical problem. Dr. Adams after consulting with Dr. Morrison arrived at the decision that the medical evidence did not support the Appellant s request for dental services and as medically appropriate, necessary, nor effective as required ESIA Regulation 24(A)(1) 3b and ESIA Regulation 25(1).

15 Page 13 [38] In the conclusion the Appeal Board stated: DCS officials have no alternative in this type of case but to ensure that all necessary criteria are met when they are required to decide whether a client does nor does not qualify for the services which have been requested. DCS personnel determined that the Appellant, Ms. Jainey Lee Bresson did not fulfill the requirements as set out in ESIA regulations 24 and 25. The determination of DCS was that the medical evidence did not support the Appellant s request for dental services and as medically appropriate, necessary, nor effective as required in ESIA Regulation 24(A(1)3b and ESIA Regulation 25(2). As DCS made this determination in arriving at its decision to dismiss orthodontics as a viable medical procedure to resolve the Appellant s issues, it also rules out the request for an orthodontic consultation. The Board adhered to the appropriate administration of those ESIA Regulations and ESIA Policies as they pertain to this case. [39] The Applicant s main argument is that the Appeal Board member accepted the note as a medical opinion on which to determine the heart of this matter. [40] The Department of Community Services held the Applicant, Ms. Bresson, to a very strict standard throughout her submission of the various medical forms. [41] In most instances they were not accepted as there was no treatment form or dental codes provided. This is not unreasonable. The decision itself stated there is a protocol which must be adhered to to enable the Department to assess whether the regulations are being met. For example, codes determine cost, and cost is one of the considerations under Regulation 24A(3)(c). [42] On these facts, did the Department of Community Service follow the same level of scrutiny, in accepting the opinions of Dr. Adams and Dr. Morrison? The

16 Page 14 Board concluded that the DCS officials complied with the ESIA Regulations and Policies in turning down the Applicant s request for Special Needs. [43] The weight of the evidence up to that point supported Ms. Bresson s request. She made significant efforts to provide what was required for a determination of what was essential to health. [44] The real question for this court is, was the Appeal Board s decision reasonable? The reasonable standard is one of deference. Whether or not a reviewing court agrees with it or whether or not a reviewing court thinks it is correct, is not the test. In those instances the decision stands as long as it meets the test of reasonableness. [45] In the recent case of Worth v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2014 NSSC 366, the court discussed how the reasonableness standard is to be applied in paragraph 11: Given that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness, the question arises as to how to apply the standard. In Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that reasonableness is a deferential standard and one which recognizes that the questions before administrative tribunals may have the potential for a number of reasonable conclusions. Reviewing courts must respect the decision making process of adjudicative bodies with regard to both the facts and the law as well as the reasons offered in support of a decision.

17 Page 15 [46] The Appeal Board s decision contains a thorough analysis of all the issues. It is the Appeal Board s home statute that was being considered. The Board is, as a result, very familiar with the Act, Regulations and related matters. [47] The Respondent makes a compelling argument that the reasonable standard has been met in this case, and thus submits the Court should not interfere with the Board s decision. At paragraph 50 of its brief the Department states: The Board Member recognized the efforts of Ms. Bresson in obtaining the various medical forms and that the purpose of the Act was to provide for the assistance of persons in need and, in particular, to facilitate their movement toward independence and self-sufficiency. The Board Member also noted, however, the regulations are passed and put in place as laws by government, and DCs officials are obligated to determine which ESIA Regulations and ESIA policies are relevant to any case and to justly administer these regulations accordingly In order to qualify, however, the Board Member recognized certain conditions had to be met. The Board Member found that based on the evidence before him and the ESIA and Regulations that the conditions had not been met in this case. [48] The question is does the Board s decision fall within the range of acceptable outcomes which are factually and legally defensible? Decision: [49] Applying the reasonableness standard, deferential as it is, it should be predicated on facts that are reasonably supported by the evidence and reliable for the purpose of reaching the ultimate decision.

18 Page 16 [50] The purpose of the Employment Support and Income Assistance Act, 2000, c.27, s.2, is: s.2 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the assistance of persons in need and in particular to facilitate their movement toward independence and self-sufficiency. [51] If the purpose of the Act is to be genuinely pursued, the medical evidence obtained should be clear, cogent and convincing in terms of the Applicant s own health, not what may or may not be the norm. [52] The medical evidence relied upon by the dental consultant for DCS, Dr. Adams was that orthodontic work is not usually needed and rarely causes TMJ concerns, and is not guaranteed to help TMJ cases. Dr. Morrison stated he was familiar with Ms. Bresson and reviewed her file. [53] While it was not unreasonable for the Department to seek out advice from its dental consultant, the question is was it reasonable for the Board to rely on the information obtained, to arrive at the decision on the appeal? [54] In Casino Nova Scotia v. NSLRB, 2009 NSCA 4, the Court of Appeal elaborated on the Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, reasonableness test. Justice Fichaud, Oland and Hamilton, JAA, concurring, described the first approach as identifying the process used in the

19 Page 17 decision making and whether there is a justifiable, intelligible and transparent reasoning path throughout the tribunal s conclusion. What this means is whether the reviewing court can understand why the tribunal made its decision. [55] In the present case while there is some question as to whether it was actually the note that was relied upon by the Department, it is reasonably clear that Dr. Adams made his decision after consulting with Dr. Morrison. The note contains an indication of the reasons for Dr. Adams decision. I find the reasons for the decision are intelligible meaning they can be understood by this Court. [56] In Casino the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal described the second step as assessing the outcome so as to determine whether the decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes that are factually and legally defensible. In doing so regard must be had to the expertise and experiences of the Board in dealing with the legislation (in this case the ESIA Act and Regulations) on a day to day basis. (Dunsmuir at para. 49) [57] In the case before me the Board affirmed the Department s finding to dismiss orthodontics as a viable medical procedure to resolve the Applicant s issues and as a result ruled out the request for an orthodontic consultation.

20 Page 18 [58] When a factual conclusion of any kind is made by a board or tribunal, such a finding involves the weighing of evidence by the decision maker. It therefore attracts a deferential standard of review, meaning it is to be respected if it falls within the range of possible outcomes based upon the evidence and the governing legislation. (Canadian Administrative Law, Regimbald, 1 st ed.) [59] In this case I find the decision of the Board is entitled to deference. This legislation left certain choices within the Department s ambit, subject to what is reasonable. [60] The Applicant objected to the medical evidence relied upon by Dr. Adams on the basis that it was hearsay, even double hearsay. Firstly, in Worth, Justice Chipman found it was appropriate within the statutory framework of the ESIA Act for the caseworker to seek out additional information where clarification is required. Further, the court found that reliance on hearsay was not problematic as such evidence is to be expected and is permissible at the Assistance Appeal Board level. I concur with this reasoning for the purposes of this judicial review. (Worth at para. 15) [61] The Department was entitled to weigh the opinion of Dr. Adams against the various other opinions which Ms. Bresson had provided. Having done so it

21 Page 19 decided that the dental consultant s opinion was the one they were prepared to accept. As a result the Department rejected Ms. Bresson s request for orthodontic treatment but supported a referral to an oral surgeon. [62] Further, the Appeal Board also weighed the evidence and upheld the Department s decision. As previously stated, a conclusion reached by the weighing of evidence is not something which this Court should interfere with unless it was unreasonable. [63] The ultimate finding of the Board was that the Respondent Department adhered to the appropriate administration of the ESIA Regulations and Policies as they pertain to Ms. Bresson. [64] I am satisfied that it was not an unreasonable finding based on the evidence before the Board. It would appear from the record that the referral to the oral surgeon as recommended would stand at this time. [65] In the result, I am dismissing the application for judicial review made by the Applicant, Ms. Bresson. I do so with all respect and thanks to her for her submissions. Murray, J.

22 Page 20 Appendix A Special need essential for health 24A(1) An applicant or recipient may submit a request for assistance on the form approved by the Director for an item or service that is excluded from the definition of special needs by clause 24(2)(b) or (d) and that is (a) prescribed within the scope of their practice by one of the following health practitioners who is licensed to practice [practise] their profession in Nova Scotia as essential for the health of the applicant or recipient or the spouse or dependent child of the applicant or recipient: (i) physician, (ii) dentist, (iii) nurse practitioner; and (b) provided by a medical professional licensed or registered to practice [practise] in Nova Scotia. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a request for medical marijuana or any equipment, supplies, materials or services used in producing or administering medical marijuana. (3) In determining whether an item or service prescribed under clause (1)(a) is a special need under this Section, all of the following must be taken into account: (a) the needs or circumstances of the applicant, recipient, spouse or dependent child; (b) evidence of the medical appropriateness, necessity and effectiveness of the requested item or service; (c) the cost of providing assistance for the requested item or service in comparison to other alternatives that would meet the needs of the applicant, recipient, spouse or dependent child; (d) availability of alternative items or services that are insured under a Provincial health services program or are otherwise funded by government; (e) whether providing the assistance requested will fulfill the purposes of the Act. (4) If a caseworker determines that the item or service is a special need under this Section, these regulations apply to it as a special need. (5) If a caseworker determines that the item or service is not a special need under this Section, the caseworker shall notify the applicant and provide written reasons for the decision, and the decision may be appealed to the Assistance Appeal Board. Section 24A added: O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 291/2013.

23 Page 21 Information to be provided 24B (1) An applicant or recipient may request assistance for an item of special need, and the applicant or recipient shall provide the following information, where applicable, to a caseworker to support the request: (a) an explanation as to why the special need is required; (b) a description of the special need; (c) any documentation from professionals supporting the special need; (d) the monthly or total cost of the special need; Original clause 24A(d) replaced: O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 251/2011. (e) the resources or alternatives that have been investigated with respect to obtaining the special need from other sources; (f) where the cost of the special need exceeds $200, estimates for the cost of the special need from 2 separate providers; and (g) if the special need has already been acquired, an invoice or receipt for the special need. Original clause 24A(g) replaced: O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 251/2011. (2) An applicant or recipient may request assistance for an item of special need in accordance with subsection (1) either before or after the purchase of the item of special need. Original Section 24A renumbered 24B: O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 291/2013. Health or medical need 25 (1) Where an applicant or recipient requests assistance for an item of special need that pertains to the health or medical requirements of the applicant or recipient or the spouse or dependent child of the applicant or recipient, a caseworker may request advice from a person qualified to provide advice in respect of the appropriateness, necessity and effectiveness of the item of special need requested and the caseworker shall take this advice into consideration in determining whether to grant the request. Section 25 re-designated 25(1): O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 291/2013. (2) A caseworker may request advice from a person qualified to provide advice in respect of the medical appropriateness, necessity and effectiveness of an item or service to be taken into account under clause 24A(3)(b), and the caseworker must take this advice into consideration in determining whether the item or service is a special need under Section 24A. Subsection 25(2) added: O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 291/2013. (3) A caseworker who requests advice under subsection (2) must advise their supervisor. Subsection 25(3) added: O.I.C , N.S. Reg. 291/2013.

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wright v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 11

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wright v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 11 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wright v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 11 Date: 2017-01-11 Docket: Hfx No. 453841 Registry: Halifax Between: Deborah Wright, Bonnie Barrett, Roxanne

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Scott v. British Columbia (The Police Complaint Commissioner), 2017 BCSC 961 Jason Scott Date: 20170609 Docket: S164838 Registry: Vancouver

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 LIBRARY HEADING

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 LIBRARY HEADING SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Walcott v. Walcott, 2017 NSSC 327 Date: 20170926 Docket: File No. 460559 Registry: Sydney Between: Rita Walcott and Gerald Walcott v. Georgina Walcott and Joseph

More information

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER March 20, 2009 A-2009-004 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT A-2009-004 Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority Summary: The Applicant applied under

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 Date: 20160118 Docket: Hfx No. 435272 Registry: Halifax Between: Dr. Dana Lymburner v. Applicant Her Majesty

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000

HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000 Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal

More information

REVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance

REVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Report of the Commissioner (Review Officer) Catherine Tully REVIEW REPORT FI-13-28 December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Summary: The

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Taylor v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness), 2018 NSCA 57

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Taylor v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness), 2018 NSCA 57 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Taylor v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness), 2018 NSCA 57 Date: 20180628 Docket: CA 466554 Registry: Halifax Between: Mark Taylor, Jonathan Trites, Matthew Rigby,

More information

The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008

The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 MANAGING YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES AS TRIBUNAL COUNSEL By Gilbert Van Nes, General Counsel & Settlement Officer Alberta Environmental

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL (revised July 2016) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal 1.10 Introduction 1.11 Definitions 1.20 Role of the Tribunal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: Dorn v Association of Professional Engineers Date: 20180305 and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba, Docket: AI17-30-08819 2018 MBCA 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice

More information

Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir

Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81 Date: 20171103 Docket: CA 460849 Registry: Halifax In the matter of: A stated case pursuant to s.

More information

SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE

SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE Larry Seiferling, Q.C., Partner, McDougall Gauley LLP Angela Giroux, Associate, McDougall Gauley LLP (a) Introduction There are few, if any, issues that have arisen

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F December 10, 2018 EDMONTON POLICE COMMISSION. Case File Number

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F December 10, 2018 EDMONTON POLICE COMMISSION. Case File Number ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2018-74 December 10, 2018 EDMONTON POLICE COMMISSION Case File Number 001251 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant made a request

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: N.V. v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2018 NSSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: N.V. v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2018 NSSC 5 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: N.V. v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2018 NSSC 5 Date: 2018-01-22 Docket: Hfx No. 458665 Registry: Halifax Between: N.V. v. Minister of Community Services and

More information

Health Professions Review Board

Health Professions Review Board Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: 250 953-4956 Toll Free: 1-888-953-4986 (within BC) Facsimile: 250 953-3195 Mailing Address: PO 9429 STN PROV

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25 Date: 20161220 Docket: Bwt No. 457414 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Town of Bridgewater v.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2011 BCSC 112 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Information a... Page 1 of 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And British Columbia (Attorney General)

More information

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. FI Re: Department of Communities, Land, and Environment

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. FI Re: Department of Communities, Land, and Environment OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island Order No. FI-16-004 Re: Department of Communities, Land, and Environment Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 Date: 2017-03-28 Docket: Hfx. No. 456782 Registry: Halifax Between: Warren Reed, Gerry Post, Ben Marson,

More information

Between: Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post)

Between: Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post) SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2010 NSSC 336 Date: 20100827 Docket: Hfx. No. 326201 Registry: Halifax Between: Canada Post Corporation

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Noël Ayangma. Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI Human Rights Commission

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Noël Ayangma. Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI Human Rights Commission SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Ayangma v Infoway 2009 PESC 24 Date: 20090814 Docket: S1-GS-22233 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And: Noël Ayangma Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI

More information

Page: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the

Page: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: Homes by Avi Ltd. v. Alberta (Workers Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), 2007 ABQB 203 Date: 20070326 Docket: 0603 14909, 0603 14405, 0603 12833 Registry:

More information

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63 Date: 2016-11-04 Docket: 2802941, 2802942 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty v. Michael Anthony Brown Judge: Heard: The Honourable

More information

Indexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al.

Indexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al. Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Lucien Comeau, Lynn Connors and Her Majesty the

More information

Indexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission

Indexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)

More information

Running head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1. Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions

Running head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1. Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions Running head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1 Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions in the Post-Dunsmuir Period in Ontario Luba Yurchak JUDICIAL

More information

2017 REVIEW OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT (FIPPA) COMMENTS FROM MANITOBA OMBUDSMAN

2017 REVIEW OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT (FIPPA) COMMENTS FROM MANITOBA OMBUDSMAN 2017 REVIEW OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT (FIPPA) COMMENTS FROM MANITOBA OMBUDSMAN 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 1. Duty to Document 4 2. Proactive Disclosure 6 3. Access

More information

Order F14-57 OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER. Ross Alexander Adjudicator. December 23, 2014

Order F14-57 OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER. Ross Alexander Adjudicator. December 23, 2014 Order F14-57 OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER Ross Alexander Adjudicator December 23, 2014 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 61 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 61 Summary: A journalist requested

More information

Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective

Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective These materials were prepared by Thora Sigurdson of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment

More information

Claimant File Claimant No and - The Administrator. (On an appeal of decision of The Honourable D. McGillis released December 9, 2013)

Claimant File Claimant No and - The Administrator. (On an appeal of decision of The Honourable D. McGillis released December 9, 2013) IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE HEPATITIS C PRE-1986/POST-1990 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (McCarthy, et al. v. Canadian Red Cross Society Court File No. 98-CV-143334) BETWEEN Claimant

More information

- and - ( Complainant ) Mariana Cowan Real Estate Limited ( Respondent ) The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY

- and - ( Complainant ) Mariana Cowan Real Estate Limited ( Respondent ) The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY IN THE MATTER OF: The Nova Scotia Human Rights Act - and - IN THE MATTER OF: BETWEEN: Board File No. 51000-30-H13-2584 Robert Morris ( Complainant ) - and - Mariana Cowan Real Estate Limited ( Respondent

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW COURSE SYLLABUS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW COURSE SYLLABUS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW 372-003 COURSE SYLLABUS Instructor: David E. Gruber, F.C.I.Arb., B.Sc.Arch. (McGill), J.D. (U. of Vic), LL.M (Cantab) Contact: dgruber@mail.ubc.ca; (604) 661-9361 M-F 9:00 a.m. to

More information

Territorial Mobility Agreement

Territorial Mobility Agreement i Territorial Mobility Agreement November 2011 FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES OF CANADA November, 2011 Introduction The purpose of this Agreement is to extend the scope of the National Mobility Agreement

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293 Date: 20161102 Docket: Dig No. 439345 Registry: Digby Between:

More information

The Exercise of Statutory Discretion

The Exercise of Statutory Discretion The Exercise of Statutory Discretion CACOLE Conference June 9, 2009 Professor Lorne Sossin University of Toronto, Faculty of Law R. Lester Jesudason Chair, Nova Scotia Police Review Board Tom Bell Counsel,

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baker v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2017 NSCA 83

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baker v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2017 NSCA 83 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baker v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2017 NSCA 83 Date: 20171128 Docket: CA 453768 Registry: Halifax Between: Jeffrey Baker v. Appellant Nova

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57. Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc.

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57. Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc. Between: NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57 Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc. v. Date: 20170620 Docket: CA 455902 / CA 458781 Registry: Halifax Appellant

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:

More information

2016 Lobbyists Act Legislative Review. Recommended Amendments to the Alberta Lobbyists Act and the Lobbyists Act General Regulation

2016 Lobbyists Act Legislative Review. Recommended Amendments to the Alberta Lobbyists Act and the Lobbyists Act General Regulation 2016 Lobbyists Act Legislative Review Recommended Amendments to the Alberta Lobbyists Act and the Lobbyists Act General Regulation Submitted by the Office of the Ethics Commissioner to the Standing Committee

More information

Order P18-01 COMPASS GROUP CANADA LTD. Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator. January 23, 2018

Order P18-01 COMPASS GROUP CANADA LTD. Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator. January 23, 2018 Order P18-01 COMPASS GROUP CANADA LTD. Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator January 23, 2018 CanLII Cite: 2018 BCIPC 06 Quicklaw Cite: [2018] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 06 Summary: Several individuals requested records

More information

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Paulin v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 363

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Paulin v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 363 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Paulin v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2016 NSSC 363 Between: Lorraine Paulin v. Date: 20160914 Docket: SYD No. 448445 Registry: Sydney Applicant Nova Scotia

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.

More information

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014 Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator October 3, 2014 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 47 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 47 Summary: The applicant, on behalf of

More information

Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18,

Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, The Shotgun Approach to Judicial Review By Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/pc/civil/2008/2008abpc0018.pdf

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180612 Docket: CI 16-01-03007 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Sekhon v. Minister of Education and Training Cited as: 2018 MBQB 99 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: NARINDER KAUR SEKHON,

More information

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Thomas Walker. Certified General Accountants of Prince Edward Island

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Thomas Walker. Certified General Accountants of Prince Edward Island PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Walker v. CGAs of PEI & Ano. 2005 PESCTD 49 Date: 20050930 Docket: S1-GS-20476 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Thomas

More information

Perspective National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Perspective National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Access Law Conference Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Introduction

More information

Recent Developments in Refugee Law

Recent Developments in Refugee Law Recent Developments in Refugee Law Appellate Cases of Note Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Department of Justice Disclaimer This presentation reflects the views of Banafsheh Sokhansanj only, and not necessarily

More information

TIPS ON AVOIDING SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW I

TIPS ON AVOIDING SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW I Energy Regulatory Forum May 19,2010 McDougall Centre (Pekisko Room) - 2: 15 to 3:15 Calgary TIPS ON AVOIDING SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW I The Honourable Neil C. Wittmann Chief Justice, Court of Queen's

More information

ROUTINE ACCESS POLICY. For the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal. October 2003 (Revised April 2005)

ROUTINE ACCESS POLICY. For the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal. October 2003 (Revised April 2005) ROUTINE ACCESS POLICY For the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal October 2003 (Revised April 2005) 1. POLICY STATEMENT This "Routine Access" policy for the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17 Date: 20180221 Docket: CA 460374/464441 Registry: Halifax Between: Baypoint Holdings Limited, and John

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER DECISION F2017-D-01. July 31, 2017 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. Case File Number F4833

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER DECISION F2017-D-01. July 31, 2017 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. Case File Number F4833 ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER DECISION F2017-D-01 July 31, 2017 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Case File Number F4833 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant made a request

More information

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: The College of Psychologists of British Columbia COLLEGE. AND: A Psychologists REGISTRANT

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: The College of Psychologists of British Columbia COLLEGE. AND: A Psychologists REGISTRANT Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. The College of Psychologists of British Columbia DECISION NO. 2017-HPA-112(a) March 15, 2018 In the matter

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F March 3, 2017 CHILDREN S SERVICES. Case File Number F7907

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F March 3, 2017 CHILDREN S SERVICES. Case File Number F7907 ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2017-28 March 3, 2017 CHILDREN S SERVICES Case File Number F7907 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant made a request under

More information

CASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview

CASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview McCarthy Tétrault Advance Building Capabilities for Growth CASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview Charles Morgan Direct Line: 514-397-4230 E-Mail: cmorgan@mccarthy.ca October 24, 2016 Overview Freedom

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10 DATE: 20120316 DOCKET: 33651 BETWEEN: Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate

More information

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30. v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURT

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30. v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURT PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30 Date: 20180831 Docket: 2793700 & 2793703 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION

More information

Aquaculture Licence and Lease Regulations made under Section 64 of the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act S.N.S. 1996, c. 25

Aquaculture Licence and Lease Regulations made under Section 64 of the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act S.N.S. 1996, c. 25 Aquaculture Licence and Lease Regulations made under Section 64 of the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act S.N.S. 1996, c. 25 O.I.C. 2015-338 (October 26, 2015), N.S. Reg. 347/2015 Table of Contents Please

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253. v. Tourism Nova Scotia LIBRARY HEADING

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253. v. Tourism Nova Scotia LIBRARY HEADING SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253 Date: 2016-09-26 Docket: Hfx No. 453012 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia Applicant Respondent

More information

Time Extension Request Guidelines for Public Bodies. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Updated: February 2, 2018

Time Extension Request Guidelines for Public Bodies. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Updated: February 2, 2018 Time Extension Request Guidelines for Public Bodies Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Updated: February 2, 2018 INTRODUCTION Under section 9 of the Freedom of Information

More information

SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE JUDGMENT AND REASONS

SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE JUDGMENT AND REASONS Date: 20141124 Docket: T-871-14 Citation: 2014 FC 1120 Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 1444 Olivia Pratten Date: 20101015 Docket: S087449 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff

More information

A View From the Bench Administrative Law

A View From the Bench Administrative Law A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi

More information

11/03/11 CHAPTER 122C - Article 5 - Part 7 Page 1

11/03/11 CHAPTER 122C - Article 5 - Part 7 Page 1 CHAPTER 122C Article 5. Procedure for Admission and Discharge of Clients. Part 7. Involuntary Commitment of the Mentally Ill; Facilities for the Mentally Ill. 122C-261. Affidavit and petition before clerk

More information

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and A069 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and A069 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT Ottawa, Ontario, April 8, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Date: 20140408 Docket: IMM-13216-12 Citation: 2014 FC 341 Applicant

More information

LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL REGARDING RICHARD MIRASTY

LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL REGARDING RICHARD MIRASTY LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL REGARDING RICHARD MIRASTY A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA Appeal to the Benchers Panel: Sandra L.

More information

Guide for Municipalities

Guide for Municipalities APPENX B: Unreasonable Invasion of Priva Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Guide for Municipalities October 2015 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Overview of Public Documents... 7 Adopted

More information

MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100630 Docket: IMM-5625-09 Citation: 2010 FC 720 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 30, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Monkman v. Serious Incident Response Team, 2015 NSSC 325. Director of SIRT (Serious Incident Response Team)

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Monkman v. Serious Incident Response Team, 2015 NSSC 325. Director of SIRT (Serious Incident Response Team) SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Monkman v. Serious Incident Response Team, 2015 NSSC 325 Date: 2015-11-13 Docket: Hfx No. 430152 Registry: Halifax Between: Helen Monkman v. Appellant Director of

More information

Krishan Kumar. The Law Society of Saskatchewan

Krishan Kumar. The Law Society of Saskatchewan Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACV2464 Citation: Kumar v The Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2015 SKCA 132 Date: 2015-11-18 Between: Krishan Kumar And Appellant The Law Society of Saskatchewan

More information

LEYLA SMIRNOVA. and SKATE CANADA JURISDICTIONAL ORDER. Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator

LEYLA SMIRNOVA. and SKATE CANADA JURISDICTIONAL ORDER. Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator SDRCC 16 0291 LEYLA SMIRNOVA (Claimant) and SKATE CANADA (Respondent) JURISDICTIONAL ORDER Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator Appearances: Laura Robinson for the Claimant Daphne Fedoruk,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Nova Scotia Ltd., 2017 NSCA 72

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Nova Scotia Ltd., 2017 NSCA 72 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. 3230813 Nova Scotia Ltd., 2017 NSCA 72 Date: 20170822 Docket: CA 459462 Registry: Halifax Between: Halifax Regional Municipality

More information

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Jewell v. I-Flow, 2017 NSSC 54 Date: 20170301 Docket: Tru No. 408788 Registry: Truro Between: Anne L. Jewell and Thurman M. Jewell, Parents of Leia Bettina Jewell,

More information

"10. (1) Subject to subsection (3) and section 36(3) below, the following,

10. (1) Subject to subsection (3) and section 36(3) below, the following, DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER 1. I grant the claimant leave to appeal and I allow his appeal against the decision of the Darlington appeal tribunal dated 7 June 2001. I set aside that decision

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F March 28, 2017 WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD. Case File Number F8005

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F March 28, 2017 WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD. Case File Number F8005 ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2017-37 March 28, 2017 WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case File Number F8005 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant made a correction

More information

Applying for a Corporation Permit

Applying for a Corporation Permit Registration Department Suite 5005 -- 7071 Bayers Road Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada B3L 2C2 Phone: (902) 422-5823 Toll-free: 1-877-282-7767 Fax: (902) 422-5035 www.cpsns.ns.ca As per Section 6 of the Act,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155. Dai Ru. Her Majesty the Queen

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155. Dai Ru. Her Majesty the Queen SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155 Date: 20180622 Docket: Hfx No. 472559 Registry: Halifax Between: Dai Ru v. Appellant Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Judge: Heard: Counsel:

More information

The Duty to Assist: A Comparative Study

The Duty to Assist: A Comparative Study Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada Commissariat à l'information du Canada The Duty to Assist: A Comparative Study Legal Services May 2008 Table of Contents Summary Chart Comparative Research

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO 1 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 DATE: 20120313 DOCKET: C53665 Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN Michael Shaw and Chief William Blair Appellants and Ronald Phipps

More information

Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia DECISION NO. 2017-HPA-006(a) October 5, 2017 In

More information

Court File No: SIGS SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT

Court File No: SIGS SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT Court File No: SIGS27017. SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) BETWEEN: and KEVIN J. ARSENAULT THE GOVERNMENT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, as represented by the MINISTER OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS

More information

Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act

Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION April 2017 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108. Debra Jane Spencer. v. Her Majesty The Queen

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108. Debra Jane Spencer. v. Her Majesty The Queen NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108 Date: 20151202 Docket: CAC 444045 Registry: Halifax Between: Judge: Motion Heard: Debra Jane Spencer v. Her Majesty The Queen MacDonald,

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2015-34 November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Case File Number F6898 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant

More information

Decision F Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator. November 23, 2011

Decision F Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator. November 23, 2011 Decision F11-04 COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator November 23, 2011 Quicklaw Cite: [2011] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 40 CanLII Cite: 2011 BCIPC 40 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/section43/decisionf11-04.pdf

More information

Applicant. ) Lisa S. Braverman, for the Appeal ) Tribunal. Respondents

Applicant. ) Lisa S. Braverman, for the Appeal ) Tribunal. Respondents CITATION: Richmond v. D.C.C.G.A.A.O., 2017 ONSC 1765 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 131/16 DATE: 20170426 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT RSJ SHAW, MOLLOY and PATTILLO JJ. BETWEEN: STEPHEN

More information