Administrative Tribunals

Utilities Commission; Judicial review - Costs - Procedural requirements and fairness - Natural justice - Standard of review - Patent unreasonableness
The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Utilities Commission, denying them costs for their participation in regulatory proceedings involving B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. The Commission's decision to deny costs, finding that the Appellants lacked a substantial interest in the proceedings and failed to show that they were impacted by the outcome of the proceedings, was not patently unreasonable.

Judicial review

Permits and licences - Motor vehicle inspection - Public officer - Delegated authority - Compliance with legislation - Public safety - Procedural requirements and fairness
Where a governmental body delegates powers to a third party and issues licences to employees of that third party to carry out delegated tasks, the awarding and revocation of licences is subject to the principles of administrative law and the requirements for procedural fairness. While such delegation is an authorization and the licensee holds a public office of sorts, this does not imply that the licence holder is a "public office holder".

Municipalities

Decisions of administrative tribunals - Municipal councils - Jurisdiction; Municipalities - Planning and zoning - Park land - By-laws; Judicial review - Procedural requirements and fairness - Standard of review - Correctness
The appeal by Hastings Park Conservancy ("HPC") from the dismissal of its petition for judicial review of a zoning by-law regarding the installation of slot machines at Hastings Race Course was dismissed.

Prisons

Administrative tribunals - Review Board - Statutory powers; Prisons - Inmates Not Criminally Responsible for their crimes - Adult in need of protection - Detention - Danger to public - Treatment plans ; Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Remedies
It was incumbent on the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") when considering an application for absolute discharge made by an inmate held in a psychiatric facility for twenty-four years, to exercise its order-making powers to impose measures to deal with the clear treatment impasse. The Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the inmate's application for absolute discharge on constitutional grounds.

For comments or suggestions, please contact: