Indexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission
|
|
- Daniella Pearson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners) (34593; 2013 SCC 67; 2013 CSC 67) Indexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission Supreme Court of Canada LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ. December 5, Summary: On September 8, 2008, McLean entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission in which she consented "to the making of the order against her" in the form of attachment. By letter dated January 14, 2010, McLean was notified that the Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (the Commission) was applying for an order against her under s. 161(6)(d) of the British Columbia Securities Act. McLean provided a written submission, asserting that no order could be made against her because the six year limitation period in s. 159 had expired. No oral hearing was requested or held. The Commission issued an order which was essentially identical to that made by the Ontario Commission and implicitly rejected her limitation period assertion. McLean applied for leave to appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Prowse, J.A., in a decision reported at [2010] B.C.A.C. Uned. 87, granted leave to appeal. The Commission obtained an order removing it as a respondent and adding the Executive Director as a respondent. The appeal proceeded. McLean asserted that the Commission erred in making an order more than six years after the events underlying the Ontario agreement and in failing to provide reasons for the order. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 312 B.C.A.C. 288; 531 W.A.C. 288, allowed the appeal on the basis that the Commission erred in not providing an explanation for the imposed sanctions. The court remitted the matter to the Commission to proceed in accordance with the court's observations. McLean moved for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision reported at 436 N.R. 396, allowed the motion. McLean appealed on the basis that the Commission had not been entitled to make an order against her as it was outside the s. 159 limitation period. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission's interpretation of the limitation period was reasonable. Although it would have been preferable had the Commission provided reasons for its decision, there was nothing to be gained from requiring the Commission to explain on remand what was readily apparent. Administrative Law - Topic 547 The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - When required - McLean entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission in which she consented "to the making of the order against her" in the form
2 of attachment - McLean was subsequently notified that the Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (the Commission) was applying for an order against her under s. 161(6)(d) of the British Columbia Securities Act - McLean provided a written submission, asserting that the action was barred by the limitation period in s. 159 of the Act - The Commission issued an order and, in doing so, impliedly decided that the proceeding was not barred by s McLean asserted that the Commission erred in not providing reasons for its order - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "As noted in [Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011, S.C.C.)], 'deference under the reasonableness standard is best given effect when administrative decision makers provide intelligible and transparent justification for their decisions'... Nonetheless, 'when a reasonable basis for the decision is apparent to the reviewing court, it will generally be unnecessary to remit the decision to the tribunal'... Unlike Alberta Teachers, in the case at bar, we do not have the benefit of the Commission's reasoning from its decisions in other cases involving the same issue... However, a basis for the Commission's interpretation is apparent from the arguments advanced by the respondent, who is also empowered to make orders under (and thus to interpret) ss. 161(1) and (6). These arguments follow from established principles of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, though reasons would have been preferable, there is nothing to be gained here from requiring the Commission to explain on remand what is readily apparent now." - See paragraphs 71 and 72. Administrative Law - Topic 3202 Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - At issue on an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission was the proper interpretation of the limitation period in s. 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) as it related to public interest orders made under s. 161(6)(d) of the Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission's decision was reviewable on the standard of reasonableness - An administrative decision maker's interpretation of its home or closely-connected statutes "... should be presumed to be a question of statutory interpretation subject to deference on judicial review" (Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011, S.C.C.)) - That presumption was not rebutted by a contextual analysis - It was solely the Commission that was tasked with interpreting s. 159 as it applied to s. 161(6)(d) in the first instance - Accordingly, contrary to the appellant's assertion, there was no possibility of the Commission and the courts giving conflicting interpretations - The court also rejected the assertion that the issue was a general question of law that was of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise - The resolution of unclear language in an administrative decision maker's home statute was usually best left to the decision maker - That was so because the choice between multiple reasonable interpretations often involved policy considerations that the court presumed that the legislature desired the administrative decision maker, not the courts, to make - The exercise of that interpretative discretion was part of an administrative decision maker's expertise - See paragraphs 19 to 33. Administrative Law - Topic 3221 Judicial review - General - Unreasonableness of decision attacked - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from
3 commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation Administrative Law - Topic 9202 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202]. Administrative Law - Topic 9116 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Review of administrative policy or discretion - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202]. Administrative Law - Topic 9118 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202]. Securities Regulation - Topic 1362 Regulatory commissions (incl. self regulatory organizations) - Practice - Limitations of actions - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Securities Regulation - Topic 1386 Regulatory commissions (incl. self-regulatory organizations) - Statutory appeal or judicial review - Scope of appeal or standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 and Administrative Law - Topic 3221].
4 Securities Regulation - Topic 5302 Trading in securities - Offences - Legislation - Interpretation - [See Administrative law - Topic 3221]. Securities Regulation - Topic Trading in securities - Offences - Limitation period - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Statutes - Topic 501 Interpretation - General principles - Purpose of legislation - Duty to promote object of statute - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Statutes - Topic 516 Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Statutes - Topic 1415 Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Ambiguity - Choice of meaning to attain purpose of Act - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Statutes - Topic 1641 Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Statutes - Topic 2614 Interpretation - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Legislative or statutory context - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221]. Cases Noticed: Asbestos Corp., Société nationale de l'amianté and Quebec (Province), Re, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 132; 269 N.R. 311; 146 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 6]. Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v. Ontario (Securities Commission) - see Asbestos Corp., Société nationale de l'amianté and Quebec (Province), Re. Heidary, Re (2000), 23 O.S.C.B. 959; 2000 LNONOSC 79, refd to. [para. 11]. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 21]. Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 22]. Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 283; 432 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 35, dist. [para. 22]. Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 2]. Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003
5 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 2]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 26]. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat. Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 26]. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 (2013), 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 26]. Arlington, City v. Federal Communications Commission (2013), 133 S. Ct. 1863, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 3]. British Columbia Securities Commission v. Bapty et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 638; 2006 BCSC 638, refd to. [para. 28]. National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 31]. VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 31]. Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc. - see VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al. Driver Iron Inc. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 et al. (2012), 437 N.R. 202; 539 A.R. 17; 561 W.A.C. 17; 2012 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 32]. Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc. - see Driver Iron Inc. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 et al. Woods, Re, 1997 LNBCSC 11, refd to. [para. 34]. Seto, Re, 2006 BCSECCOM 569, refd to. [para. 34]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 37]. Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 38]. Canadian Pacific Air Lines v. Canadian Air Lines Pilots Association, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724; 160 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 42]. ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 43]. Montreal (City) v Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; 340 N.R. 305; 2005 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 43]. Dennis, Re, (2005), 2004 L.N.B.C.S.C 705; 2005 BCSECCOM 65, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46]. Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207; 2000 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 51]. Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C.
6 161, refd to. [para. 61]. Friedland, Re, 2010 BCSECCOM 654, refd to. [para. 62]. Nielsen, Re (2013), 36 O.C.S.B. 3478; 2013 LNONOSC 254, refd to. [para. 62]. Robinson, Re, 2013 LNABASC 295; 2013 ABASC 317, refd to. [para. 62]. Maitland Capital Ltd., Re (2012), 35 O.C.S.B 1729; 2012 LNONOSC 95; refd to. [para. 62]. K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 63]. Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1820), 2 Jac. & W. 1; 37 E.R. 527, refd to. [para. 63]. Lines v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al. (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 236; 553 W.A.C. 236; 35 B.C.L.R.(5th) 281; 2012 BCCA 316, refd to. [para. 65]. Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 66]. Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 68]. Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, addendum 157 N.R. 372; 66 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 68]. Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 71]. Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207; 2000 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 77]. Reference Re Securities Act, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 837; 424 N.R. 1; 519 A.R. 63; 539 W.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 77]. Statutes Noticed: Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, sect. 159, sect. 161(6)(d) [para. 9]. Authors and Works Noticed: Côté, Pierre-André, Beaulac, Stéphane and Devinat, Mathieu, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 287, 288 [para. 47]. Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 149 [para. 47]. Teplitsky, Martin, Standard of review of administrative adjudication: "What a tangled web we weave..." (2013), Advocates Soc. J. 3, generally [para. 20, footnote 1]. Willis, John, Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell (1938), 16 Can. Bar Rev. 1, pp. 4, 5 [para. 37]. Counsel: Christopher H. Wirth and Fredrick Schumann, for the appellant; Stephen M. Zolnay, for the respondent; Lou Brzezinski and John Polyzogopoulos, for the intervener, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada; Johanna M. Superina and Usman M. Sheikh, for the intervener, the Ontario Securities Commission. Solicitors of Record: Stockwoods, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant; British Columbia Securities Commission, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the
7 respondent; Blaney McMurtry, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada; Ontario Securities Commission, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Securities Commission. This appeal was heard on March 21, 2013, by LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moklaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgement of the court was released in both official languages on December 5, 2013, with the following opinions: Editor: Gary W. McLaughlin Moldaver, J. (LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Crowell and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 73; Karakatsanis, J. - see paragraphs 74 to 82. Appeal dismissed. Administrative Law - Topic 9202 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - At issue on an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission was the proper interpretation of the limitation period in s. 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) as it related to public interest orders made under s. 161(6)(d) of the Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission's decision was reviewable on the standard of reasonableness - An administrative decision maker's interpretation of its home or closely-connected statutes "... should be presumed to be a question of statutory interpretation subject to deference on judicial review" (Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011, S.C.C.)) - That presumption was not rebutted by a contextual analysis - It was solely the Commission that was tasked with interpreting s. 159 as it applied to s. 161(6)(d) in the first instance - Accordingly, contrary to the appellant's assertion, there was no possibility of the Commission and the courts giving conflicting interpretations - The court also rejected the assertion that the issue was a general question of law that was of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise - The resolution of unclear language in an administrative decision maker's home statute was usually best left to the decision maker - That was so because the choice between multiple reasonable interpretations often involved policy considerations that the court presumed that the legislature desired the administrative decision maker, not the courts, to make - The exercise of that interpretative discretion was part of an administrative decision maker's expertise - See paragraphs 19 to 33. Administrative Law - Topic 9116 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Review of administrative policy or discretion - At issue on an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission was the proper interpretation of the limitation period in s. 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) as it related to public interest orders made under s. 161(6)(d) of the Act - The Supreme Court
8 of Canada held that the Commission's decision was reviewable on the standard of reasonableness - An administrative decision maker's interpretation of its home or closelyconnected statutes "... should be presumed to be a question of statutory interpretation subject to deference on judicial review" (Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011, S.C.C.)) - That presumption was not rebutted by a contextual analysis - It was solely the Commission that was tasked with interpreting s. 159 as it applied to s. 161(6)(d) in the first instance - Accordingly, contrary to the appellant's assertion, there was no possibility of the Commission and the courts giving conflicting interpretations - The court also rejected the assertion that the issue was a general question of law that was of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise - The resolution of unclear language in an administrative decision maker's home statute was usually best left to the decision maker - That was so because the choice between multiple reasonable interpretations often involved policy considerations that the court presumed that the legislature desired the administrative decision maker, not the courts, to make - The exercise of that interpretative discretion was part of an administrative decision maker's expertise - See paragraphs 19 to 33. Administrative Law - Topic 9118 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals - At issue on an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission was the proper interpretation of the limitation period in s. 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) as it related to public interest orders made under s. 161(6)(d) of the Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission's decision was reviewable on the standard of reasonableness - An administrative decision maker's interpretation of its home or closelyconnected statutes "... should be presumed to be a question of statutory interpretation subject to deference on judicial review" (Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011, S.C.C.)) - That presumption was not rebutted by a contextual analysis - It was solely the Commission that was tasked with interpreting s. 159 as it applied to s. 161(6)(d) in the first instance - Accordingly, contrary to the appellant's assertion, there was no possibility of the Commission and the courts giving conflicting interpretations - The court also rejected the assertion that the issue was a general question of law that was of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise - The resolution of unclear language in an administrative decision maker's home statute was usually best left to the decision maker - That was so because the choice between multiple reasonable interpretations often involved policy considerations that the court presumed that the legislature desired the administrative decision maker, not the courts, to make - The exercise of that interpretative discretion was part of an administrative decision maker's expertise - See paragraphs 19 to 33. Securities Regulation - Topic 1362 Regulatory commissions (incl. self regulatory organizations) - Practice - Limitations of actions - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the
9 Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation Securities Regulation - Topic 1386 Regulatory commissions (incl. self-regulatory organizations) - Statutory appeal or judicial review - Scope of appeal or standard of review - At issue on an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission was the proper interpretation of the limitation period in s. 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) as it related to public interest orders made under s. 161(6)(d) of the Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission's decision was reviewable on the standard of reasonableness - An administrative decision maker's interpretation of its home or closely-connected statutes "... should be presumed to be a question of statutory interpretation subject to deference on judicial review" (Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011, S.C.C.)) - That presumption was not rebutted by a contextual analysis - It was solely the Commission that was tasked with interpreting s. 159 as it applied to s. 161(6)(d) in the first instance - Accordingly, contrary to the appellant's assertion, there was no possibility of the Commission and the courts giving conflicting interpretations - The court also rejected the assertion that the issue was a general question of law that was of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise - The resolution of unclear language in an administrative decision maker's home statute was usually best left to the decision maker - That was so because the choice between multiple reasonable interpretations often involved policy considerations that the court presumed that the legislature desired the administrative decision maker, not the courts, to make - The exercise of that interpretative discretion was part of an administrative decision maker's expertise - See paragraphs 19 to 33.
10 Securities Regulation - Topic 1386 Regulatory commissions (incl. self-regulatory organizations) - Statutory appeal or judicial review - Scope of appeal or standard of review - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation was reasonable, but also that the Commission's interpretation was unreasonable - The court reviewed the ordinary meaning, the drafting history, the context and the purpose of ss. 159 and 161(6), and concluded that the Commission's interpretation struck a reasonable balance between achieving the legislative goal of facilitating interprovincial cooperation and the underlying purpose of limitation periods - Notwithstanding McLean's reasonable concerns, the court was unable to conclude that the Commission's interpretation was unreasonable - There was no basis for judicial interference - See Securities Regulation - Topic 5302 Trading in securities - Offences - Legislation - Interpretation - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory
11 interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation Securities Regulation - Topic Trading in securities - Offences - Limitation period - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation was reasonable, but also that the Commission's interpretation was unreasonable - The court reviewed the ordinary meaning, the drafting history, the context and the purpose of ss. 159 and 161(6), and concluded that the Commission's interpretation struck a reasonable balance between achieving the legislative goal of facilitating interprovincial cooperation and the underlying purpose of limitation periods - Notwithstanding McLean's reasonable concerns, the court was unable to conclude that the Commission's interpretation was unreasonable - There was no basis for judicial interference - See Statutes - Topic 501 Interpretation - General principles - Purpose of legislation - Duty to promote object of statute - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they
12 were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation Statutes - Topic 516 Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation
13 Statutes - Topic 1415 Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Ambiguity - Choice of meaning to attain purpose of Act - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6) (d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation Statutes - Topic 1641 Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - General - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably
14 bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation Statutes - Topic 2614 Interpretation - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Legislative or statutory context - Section 159 of the Securities Act (B.C.) prohibited the British Columbia Securities Commission from commencing a regulatory action "... more than 6 years after the date of the events that give rise to the proceedings" - Section 161(6)(d)) permitted the Commission to commence a secondary proceeding in the public interest against persons who had agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator, by way of a settlement agreement, to be subject to regulatory action - McLean appealed the commencement of secondary proceedings against her, asserting that the proceedings had been barred as they were commenced more that six years after the underlying misconduct - The Commission asserted that, inter alia, the purpose of s. 161(6)(d) would be undermined if it was barred from making an order in any case where the extra-provincial proceedings concluded more than six years after the date of the wrongdoer's misconduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that both interpretations were reasonable - Because the administrative decision maker was charged with administering and applying its home statute, it was the decision maker, first and foremost, that had the discretion to resolve a statutory uncertainty by adopting any interpretation that the statutory language could reasonably bear - Judicial deference in such instances was a principle of modern statutory interpretation - McLean's burden was not only to show that her competing interpretation
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 informationIndexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court of Appeal Noël, Mainville and Webb, JJ.A. March 31, 2014.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (appellant) v. Nanakmeet Kaur Kandola by her guardian at law Malkiat Singh Kandola (respondent) (A-154-13; 2014 FCA 85) Indexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister
More informationIndexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ. March 1, 2013.
J.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (34284; 2013 SCC 12; 2013 CSC 12) Indexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin,
More informationIN 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 informationIndexed As: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley et al. Federal Court Mandamin, J. February 1, 2013.
Canadian National Railway (applicant) v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondents) and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65 DATE: 20121129 DOCKET: 34205 BETWEEN: Construction Labour Relations - An Alberta Association Appellant and
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54) Indexed As: R. v. Sarrazin (R.) et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie,
More informationThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A ; 2015 FCA 237)
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A-531-14; 2015 FCA 237) Indexed As: Tran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationIndexed As: Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.
Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (appellant) v. Guiseppe Figliola, Kimberley Sallis, Barry Dearden and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (respondents) and Attorney General of British
More informationIndexed As: Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu, JJ.A. March 30, 2015.
Paul Figueiras (applicant/appellant) v. Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, and Mark Charlebois (respondents/respondents) (C58771; 2015 ONCA 208) Indexed
More informationIndexed As: R. v. Spencer (M.D.)
Matthew David Spencer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Alberta, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canadian
More informationIndexed As: Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Community Legal Assistance Society,
More informationAnd In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012.
In The Matter of an Application by [...] for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-23 (2012 FC 1437) And In The Matter of [...] Indexed
More informationIBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd.
IBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella,
More informationIndexed As: Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court Shore, J. May 26, 2014.
Oscar Iyamuremye, Jean de Dieu Ntibeshya, Jeanine Umuhire et Karabo Greta Ineza (partie demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration (partie défenderesse) (IMM-5282-13; 2014 CF 494;
More informationIndexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM-3693-10; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v.
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Mactavish, J. April 18, 2012.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario, Amnesty International (respondents)
More informationIndexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association
British Columbia Teachers' Federation (appellant/union) v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association (respondent/employer) (CA039123; 2012 BCCA 326) Indexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen
More informationKhosa: 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 informationIndexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Mounted Police Association of Ontario/Association de la Police Montée de l'ontario and B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Royal Canadian
More informationIndexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al.
Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg (appellants/respondents on cross-appeal) v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products
More informationIN 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 informationIndexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Nedzad Dzihic, Rania El-Murr, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince, Homa Vossoughi and Hamid Zebaradami (respondents)
More informationIndexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of Appeal Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A. March 14, 2013.
Gisèle Ouellette (applicant/appellant) v. Saint-André, an incorporated Rural Community (respondent) (89-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 21) Indexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of
More informationRegina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231)
Regina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231) Indexed As: R. v. Mann (R.S.) British Columbia Court of Appeal
More informationIN 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 informationONTARIO 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 informationSa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)
Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon
More informationIN 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 informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationDUNSMUIR, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND REASONABLENESS REVIEW: MUCH ADO ABOUT VERY LITTLE?
DUNSMUIR, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND REASONABLENESS REVIEW: MUCH ADO ABOUT VERY LITTLE? The Honourable John M. Evans Public Law Counsel, Goldblatt Partners LLP, Toronto [Speaking notes for an address
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationProceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 Dianna Louise Parsons, Michael Herbert Cruickshanks, David Tull, Martin Henry Griffen, Anna Kardish, Elsie Kotyk, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Kotyk,
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia,
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, 2011. Summary:
More informationIndexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. February 14, 2013.
Kerry Murphy (appellant) v. Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global (respondents) (A-487-11; 2013 FCA 38) Indexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel,
More informationRichard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents)
Richard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney
More informationIndexed As: Reference Re Securities Act
In The Matter Of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, dated May 26, 2010 (33718; 2011 SCC 66; 2011 CSC 66)
More informationADMINISTRATIVE 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 informationEmilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM ; 2014 FC 1073)
Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64 Date: 20160118 Docket: SYD No. 443281 Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department
More informationAdministrative 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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Edmonton (Police Service) v Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2014 ABCA 267 Between: Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service - and - Law Enforcement
More informationIndexed As: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al.
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. and Neil Godfrey (appellants) v. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Canada Co./Microsoft Canada CIE (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener) (34282; 2013 SCC
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationIndexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014.
Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/appellant) v. Phat Trang and Phuong Trang a.k.a. Phuong Thi Trang (defendants) and Bank of Nova Scotia (respondent) (C57306; 2014 ONCA 883) Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada
More informationJAN E the person named as petitioner in the style of proceedings above SUPREME COURT VANCOUVER REGISTRY PETITION TO THE COURT
SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY JAN 18 2017 17.0 5 1 4 No. Vancouver Registry BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the Matter of the decision of the Delegate of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 DATE: 20111028 DOCKET: 33507 BETWEEN: Canadian Human Rights Commission and Donna Mowat
More informationThe 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 informationIndexed As: Thibodeau v. Air Canada. Federal Court of Appeal Pelletier, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. September 25, 2012.
Air Canada (appellant) v. Michel Thibodeau and Lynda Thibodeau (respondents) and The Commissioner of Official Languages (intervener) (A-358-11; 2012 FCA 246; 2012 CAF 246) Indexed As: Thibodeau v. Air
More informationHer Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.)
Her Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.) Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Gorman, P.C.J. March 2, 2015. Summary: The accused
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F July 7, 2017 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE. Case File Number F5536
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2017-57 July 7, 2017 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE Case File Number F5536 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: On June 16, 2010, the Criminal
More informationSupreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl
Supreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl February 2005 In April of 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, High River Limited Partnership, Philip Services Corp. by its receiver and manager, Robert Cumming (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Deloitte & Touche LLP,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd., 2013 SCC 46 DATE: 20130913 DOCKET: 34505 BETWEEN: Régie des rentes du Québec Appellant and Canada Bread Company
More informationPerspective 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Langley (Township) v. De Raadt, 2014 BCSC 650 Date: 20140415 Docket: S136273 Registry: Vancouver The Corporation of the Township of Langley Petitioner
More informationOrder F16-25 BC SECURITIES COMMISSION. Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator. May 17, 2016
Order F16-25 BC SECURITIES COMMISSION Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator May 17, 2016 CanLII Cite: 2016 BCIPC 27 Quicklaw Cite: [2016] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 27 Summary: The applicant requested copies of his
More informationSubstantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation)
May 2013 Municipal Law Section Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) By Scott McAnsh Antrim Truck Stop is located just off Highway
More informationOrder 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: 20110216 DOCKET: 33714 BETWEEN: Marko Miljevic Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Fish,
More informationIN 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 informationONTARIO 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 information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationReview of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré
Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré February 24, 2014, OTTAWA Distinct But Overlapping: Administrative Law and the Charter Over the
More informationA.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R.
A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R. Ontario Court of Appeal Cronk, Gillese and MacFarland, JJ.A.
More informationAlberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No
Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 DATE: 20111027 DOCKET: 33648 BETWEEN: Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia Appellant and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: DOCKET: 32987
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: 20110128 DOCKET: 32987 BETWEEN: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen and Stéphan
More informationKrishan 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Court File No. (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) NISHNAWBE-ASKI NATION and GINOOGAMING FIRST NATION, LONG LAKE 58 FIRST NATION, and TRANSCANADA
More informationOrder F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010
Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator January 7, 2010 Quicklaw Cite: [2010] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2010 BCIPC 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/orderf10-01.pdf
More informationOrder F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015
Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry
More informationResearch Papers. Contents
` Legislative Library and Research Services Research Papers WHEN DO ONTARIO ACTS AND REGULATIONS COME INTO FORCE? Research Paper B31 (revised March 2018) Revised by Tamara Hauerstock Research Officer Legislative
More informationOrder F13-01 MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY OF CITIZENS SERVICES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT. Michael McEvoy, Assistant Commissioner.
Order F13-01 MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY OF CITIZENS SERVICES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT Quicklaw Cite: [2013] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2013 BCIPC No. 1 Michael McEvoy, Assistant Commissioner January
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 APPEAL HEARD: February 7, 2018 JUDGMENT RENDERED: October 26, 2018 DOCKET: 37207 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Justine Awashish
More informationThe Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201 Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Professor Bruce Ryder Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 22 November 2016 I am pleased
More informationOrder F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING. Chelsea Lott Adjudicator. July 9, 2018
Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING Chelsea Lott Adjudicator July 9, 2018 CanLII Cite: 2018 BCIPC 28 Quicklaw Cite: [2018] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 28 Summary: Order F16-24 authorized
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2011 SCC 60 DATE: 20111208 DOCKET: 33511 BETWEEN: Attorney General of Quebec Appellant and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. - and
COURT FILE NO. 36300 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL - and FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY, KATRINA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65 DATE: DOCKET: 36179
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65 DATE: 20151218 DOCKET: 36179 BETWEEN: Derek Riesberry Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 DATE: 20131031 DOCKET: 34283 BETWEEN: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg Appellants/Respondents
More informationALBERTA 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and
S.C.C. File No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationCase Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)
Page 1 Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Cuddy Chicks Limited, appellant; v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local
More informationApplicant. ) 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. APPEAL HEARD: March 28, 2017 JUDGMENT RENDERED: December 15, 2017 DOCKET: and. Edward Schrenk Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 APPEAL HEARD: March 28, 2017 JUDGMENT RENDERED: December 15, 2017 DOCKET: 37041 BETWEEN: British Columbia
More informationIndependence, Accountability and Human Rights
NOTE: This article represents the views of the author and not the Department of Justice, Yukon Government. Independence, Accountability and Human Rights by Lorne Sossin 1 As part of the Yukon Human Rights
More informationSASKATCHEWAN 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 informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationSUPREME 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 informationCASL 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 35 DATE: 20120712 DOCKET: 33922 BETWEEN: Rogers Communications Inc.,
More information