Canada Case Law

Mansfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

Seal's application for security for costs was dismissed because he failed to demonstrate Mansfield would be unable to pay his costs on appeal and Mansfield showed the appeal was reasonably or fairly apparent to have merit; additionally, the court noted that intervenor costs are not routinely awarded and must be justified, so ordering security was not warranted.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Intervention
• Costs of intervenor
• Appellate review of discretionary orders
• Stay of costs

Read case analysis

Oleynik v. Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed: the Court held the appeal judge did not err — case management ordered without oral argument did not breach procedural fairness given inherent jurisdiction and rules; additional evidence was irrelevant and not admitted; no reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict established; the record was complete; amendments made were limited to clerical corrections; no palpable and overriding errors were shown. Costs awarded to respondent under Column 3.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Conflict of interest
• Admission of additional evidence
• Case management
• Functus officio
• Duty of good faith

Read case analysis

Dempsey v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

A complainant in a professional disciplinary process lacks standing to seek substantive judicial review of the disciplinary body's merits; judicial review by a complainant is limited to minimal, context‑specific procedural fairness as defined by Baker and provincial authorities. Consequently Grounds A, C, D, E, F and H, which seek substantive review, are dismissed for lack of standing; Grounds B and G raise procedural issues and remain available for consideration within the limited procedural framework.

Source excerpt

• Standing
• Procedural fairness
• Reasons for decision
• Delay
• Jurisdiction of regulatory bodies

Read case analysis

Murray v. Toronto-Dominion Bank

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Stuart Cameron Murray’s appeal, affirming summary judgment for TD Bank on causation and loss arising from alleged trust-account banking errors.

• Conversion
• Detinue
• Causation
• Summary judgment
• Damages
• Regulatory investigation

Read case analysis

Sandhu v. Canada (College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultant)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court correctly applied the vexatious litigant framework and made no legal or palpable overriding factual errors in finding the appellant's repeated, irrelevant and scandalous allegations and disregard for orders justified regulating his access to court; the dismissed action lacked merit; the motion to admit the Privacy Commissioner letter was not properly before the court so no procedural fairness breach occurred; comments about ongoing judicial review did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; and the costs orders were within discretion.

Source excerpt

• Vexatious litigant
• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Attorney general consent under s.40
• Costs

Read case analysis

Casimir c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

La Cour fédérale radie la DACJ déposée par le demandeur, mais lui permet de la modifier dans les 30 jours; elle condamne Murat Damas aux dépens personnellement.

• Unauthorized practice of law
• Striking of pleadings
• Leave to amend
• Costs against non-party
• Inadmissibility under s.101(1)(e) irpa
• Unauthorized-practice-of-law

Read case analysis

Howe v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The judicial review is dismissed because the complainant, as a non‑party to the disciplinary process, lacked standing to seek substantive review of the CRC's decision; the CRC satisfied its low‑end duty of procedural fairness by conducting the required review, providing written reasons and remaining impartial; no cogent evidence of reasonable apprehension of bias was established; and the delay was not inordinate or prejudicial.

Source excerpt

• Standing
• Procedural fairness
• Reasonableness review
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Delay/abuse of process

Read case analysis

Superintendent of Real Estate v. Financial Services Tribunal

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court concluded the Hearing Officer's Liability Decision was reasonable and procedurally fair: the Hearing Officer had a rational, transparent chain of analysis that supported findings that the $50,000 advanced was a loan and that advancing those funds placed the licensee in a conflict of interest; the FST Panel Chair's conclusion that the Liability Decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair misapprehended the Hearing Officer's reliance on evidence and exceeded the FST's remedial scope by effectively staying the disciplinary process; the FST order was quashed, the Hearing Officer's…

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Reasonableness standard
• Procedural fairness
• Conflict of interest
• Hearsay evidence
• Remedies and remittal

Read case analysis

Kovacik v. The Association of Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Petition is dismissed because the Panel acted within its procedural duties, applied the correct balance of probabilities standard, permissibly admitted and assessed the evidence (including hearsay and photographs), rationally resolved conflicts in evidence, and reasonably found the petitioner had signed and sealed an inspection report recommending anchor stools for service when they were not serviceable and weld repairs were incomplete, constituting unprofessional conduct.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Standard of review
• Unprofessional conduct
• Admissibility of hearsay
• Standard of proof

Read case analysis

Cole v. The Law Society of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Cole’s appeal, holding the Law Society review board did not fetter its discretion or misapply the sanctioning principles.

• Sanctions
• Fettering discretion
• Standard of review
• Tribunal review
• Professional misconduct
• Professional-discipline

Read case analysis