Topic:"Appeal Processes" in M08888

1. Facts 1. Les faits Prior to its bankruptcy, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes 2 Avant sa faillite, la societ´ e Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes ´ Limited ("Rizzo") owned and operated a chain of Limited («Rizzo») possedait et exploitait au ´ retail shoe stores ac...

AI summary Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Limited filed for bankruptcy on April 13, 1989, leading to the termination of employee employment. The Ministry appealed the Trustee's decision regarding the distribution of Rizzo's assets, seeking to overturn the court's order. Key issues include bankruptcy proceedings, employment termination, and legal appeals.

What Issues are Appealable? - [41] The reviewing court's "first order of business" is to determine what grounds of appeal are permitted by the legislation. Next is the selection of a standard of review to the appealable grounds. Canada (Ci...

AI summary The reviewing court first determines appealable grounds under the legislation, citing cases like Khosa and Teal Cedar. The Board's authority is governed by the Utility and Review Board Act and other statutes like the Expropriation Act.

Appeal 30(1) An appeal lies to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court from an order of the Board upon any question as to its jurisdiction or upon any question of law , upon filing with the Court a notice of appeal within thirty days afte...

AI summary The appeal discusses the limited grounds for appealing a Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board (UARB) order, confined to jurisdiction or law. The court emphasizes that factual findings are generally not appealable unless unsupported by evidence, citing precedents like Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and Fadelle v. Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists . Legal standards of review, such as reasonableness, are central to the analysis.

- [54] In Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd. , [2016] 2 S.C.R. 293, s. 470(1) of Alberta's Municipal Government Act permitted an appeal, with leave, from a decision of an assessment review board on an issue o...

AI summary The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Alberta Court of Appeal's application of the correctness standard to statutory appeals, emphasizing that reasonableness should govern such appeals. The majority held that statutory appeals from administrative tribunals are subject to reasonableness review, aligning with prior jurisprudence.

- said that contextual analysis may overcome this presumption of reasonableness only "occasionally", "sparingly" and in "exceptional" cases. - [57] Next is Nova Scotia's caselaw under s. 30(1) of the UARB Act . - [58] This Court frequently...

AI summary The text discusses Nova Scotia's legal framework for appeals under the UARB Act, emphasizing reasonableness as the standard. It cites numerous NSCA cases affirming this principle and highlights the Expropriation Act's role in compensation determinations. The Board's authority under the UARB Act to resolve legal and factual questions in expropriation cases is noted.

[163] The Board accepted Mr. Doucet's approach: - [610] Mr. Doucet had assigned a lower value to the southern remnant lands when calculating the value of the entire Central parcel with his use of the "4-3-2-1 Rule". While the Province subm...

AI summary The Board accepted Mr. Doucet's land valuation approach using the '4-3-2-1 Rule,' despite the Province's objection. The Board relied on expert appraisal methods and market data analysis, concluding that rear lands have lower value due to distance from roads. PwC's disturbance loss calculations and expert reports from both parties were considered in the proceeding.

ence. To the extent the factual issues are appealable, the Board's findings were well-supported by the testimony of Mr. Bradley and Ms. Rodenhiser. The Board's reasoning path is clear. Its conclusions are reasonable. I would dismiss the Pr...

AI summary The Province's appeal against the Board's quantification of Central's disturbance loss after 2005 is dismissed. The Board accepted PwC's expert testimony that the loss diminished over time as Central's Market Street operation stabilized, rejecting the Province's expert's claim that the loss period ended in 2005. The Board's reasoning was deemed reasonable and well-supported by evidence.

ble because they were built on estimates the Board considers too uncertain. - [217] Central's cross-appeal targets the future costs that the Board disallowed. Essentially, Central makes two arguments.

AI summary Central's cross-appeal challenges the Board's disallowance of future costs, arguing the Board's reliance on uncertain estimates was incorrect. Central asserts two arguments against this decision, focusing on the validity of the Board's cost assessments.

duced in Nova Scotia by the Expropriation Act , 1973 (S.N.S. 1973, c. 7). This Act set out the guiding principles to determine compensation. They remain unchanged. - [254] With respect to process, the 1973 Act introduced a new structure to...

AI summary The 1973 Expropriation Act established the Expropriations Compensation Board to determine compensation, with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court's Trial Division having broad appeal rights. The Act did not include a privative clause, allowing judicial review of the Board's decisions.

Appeal - 30 (1) An appeal lies to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court from an order of the Board upon any question as to its jurisdiction or upon any question of law, upon filing with the Court a notice of appeal within thirty days af...

AI summary The text outlines the appeal process from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the standard of review. It references the Expropriation Act and the Utility and Review Board Act, stating that factual findings are subject to 'patent unreasonableness' review, while legal/jurisdictional questions are reviewed for 'correctness.'

icipality was required to withhold approval until the Authority decided which lands to expropriate. - [311] The award of disturbance damages was reversed on appeal to the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court...

AI summary The Supreme Court reinstated the Board's award of disturbance damages, endorsing the correctness standard of review despite differing statutory provisions. The decision referenced the Privy Council's ruling in Director of Buildings and Lands v. Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd. , affirming that disturbance damages are recoverable even pre-expropriation. Prior courts had reversed the award, but the Supreme Court's reinstatement emphasized the expropriation process's legal framework.

CASE LAW - Tab 1 ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (CanLII) - Tab 2 National Energy Board Act (Can.) (Re), 1986 CanLII 4033 (FCA) (CanLII) - Tab 3 Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Department of Agricultu...

AI summary The document lists case law references, including a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada case involving ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. and Alberta's Energy and Utilities Board. The City of Calgary and ATCO Gas are involved in a cross-appeal, with interveners including Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., and Union Gas Limited. The case is indexed as ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), with a neutral citation of 2006 SCC 4.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Regu‑ latory boards — Jurisdiction — Doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication — Natural gas public utility applying to Alberta Energy and U...

AI summary The case involves an appeal from the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board's jurisdiction to allocate proceeds from a natural gas utility's asset sale to protect public interest. Key legislation includes the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act, Public Utilities Board Act, and Gas Utilities Act. The Board approved the sale with a condition to allocate proceeds to ratepaying customers, raising questions about its jurisdiction and the reasonableness of the decision.

enjoignant d'attribuer à ATCO la totalité du produit net. Arrêt (la juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Fish sont dissidents) : Le pourvoi est rejeté et le pourvoi incident est accueilli. Les juges Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps et...

AI summary The appeal was rejected, and the incident appeal was accepted. The majority held that the Board had no jurisdiction to allocate sale proceeds to ratepayers, correcting the Court of Appeal's error in not concluding this.

Doctrine citée - Anisman, Philip, and Robert F. Reid. Administrative Law Issues and Practice . Scarborough, Ont. : Carswell, 1995. - Black, Alexander J. « Responsible Regulation : Incentive Rates for Natural Gas Pipelines » (1992), 28 Tuls...

AI summary The document lists legal references and academic works on administrative law, energy regulation, and utility management. Citations include books, articles, and legal commentaries by authors such as Anisman, Black, and Brown, focusing on regulatory frameworks, judicial review, and economic principles of regulation.

2.2 Norme de contrôle Une décision administrative étant à l'origine du présent pourvoi, il faut déterminer le degré de déférence auquel a droit l'organisme qui l'a rendue. S'exprimant au nom de la Cour d'appel, le juge Wittmann a conclu qu...

AI summary The text discusses the standard of review for an administrative decision by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB), emphasizing the application of the 'decision correct' standard. It references Supreme Court of Canada cases ( Pushpanathan and United Taxi Drivers ) and analyzes AEUBA section 26(1), which limits appeals to questions of jurisdiction or law. The analysis stresses the need to evaluate all four factors from Pushpanathan before concluding on the standard of review.

[TRADUCTION] - 26(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les décisions de la Commission sont susceptibles d'appel devant la Cour d'appel sur une question de droit ou de compétence. - (2) L'autorisation d'appel ne peut être obtenue d'un juge de...

AI summary The text outlines appeal procedures under section 26 of the legislation, noting that decisions are appealable on jurisdictional or legal questions. It references the AEUBA's privative clause, which renders Board decisions final, while acknowledging the Court of Appeal's recognition of the Board's expertise in Alberta's energy sector.

ialized lower tribunal on matters squarely within its jurisdiction. (This dictum was cited with approval in Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) , [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557, at p. 592.) — conféré à la Commission — d'[TRADUCTION]...

AI summary The text discusses the standard of judicial review for administrative decisions, emphasizing deference to regulatory bodies' subjective judgments under the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act (AEUBA). It cites cases like Pezim v. British Columbia and Calgary Power Ltd. c. Copithorne , highlighting the 'manifestly unreasonable' standard and the importance of regulatory expertise in determining public interest.

III. Dispositif Je suis d'avis d'accueillir le pourvoi, d'annuler la décision de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta et de rétablir la décision de la Commission, avec dépens payables à la ville de Calgary dans toutes les cours. Le pourvoi inciden...

AI summary The appeal is accepted, the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision is annulled, and the Commission's decision is restored with costs payable to Calgary. ATCO's incidental appeal is rejected with costs.

Appeals - 26(1) Subject to subsection (2), an appeal lies from the Board to the Court of Appeal on a question of jurisdiction or on a question of law. - (2) Leave to appeal may be obtained from a judge of the Court of Appeal only on an app...

AI summary The text outlines procedures for appeals from the Board to the Court of Appeal, limited to jurisdiction or legal questions. Leave to appeal requires application within 30 days of the decision, or a judge-ordered extension. Key elements include time limits, judicial review scope, and conditions for extending appeal deadlines.

Appel - 26(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les décisions de la Commission sont susceptibles d'appel devant la Cour d'appel sur une question de droit ou de compétence. - (2) L'autorisation d'appel ne peut être obtenue d'un juge de la Cou...

AI summary The text outlines procedures for appealing Commission decisions to the Court of Appeal, requiring authorization within 30 days or a judge-extended period. It emphasizes jurisdictional and legal grounds for appeals.

Immunité de contrôle 27 Sous réserve de l'article 26, toute mesure, ordonnance ou décision de la Commission ou de la personne exerçant ses pouvoirs ou ses fonctions est définitive et ne peut être contestée, révisée ou restreinte dans le ca...

AI summary Under the Gas Utilities Act, decisions by the Commission are final and cannot be challenged through judicial review, as per section 26.

Principe et interprétation 10 Tout texte est réputé apporter une solution de droit et s'interprète de la manière la plus équitable et la plus large qui soit compatible avec la réalisation de son objet. Pourvoi rejeté avec dépens et pourvoi...

AI summary The text outlines a legal principle of interpreting texts in the most equitable and broad manner compatible with their purpose. It references a rejected appeal with costs, an accepted incident appeal with costs, and dissenting judges McLachlin, Binnie, and Fish. Multiple interveners, including Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Ontario Energy Board, are listed with their legal representatives.

cting the Grand Trunk Railway \ PRESENT:—Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ. 1909 GBAND TRUNK RY. CO. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF ONTARIO. Co. to provide station accommodation for traffic at...

AI summary The Grand Trunk Railway Co. appealed an order requiring it to provide station accommodation for the Department of Agriculture of Ontario's experimental fruit farm. The appeal centered on whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Railway Act to mandate the railway company to acquire additional lands. The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal, with jurisdictional questions remaining unresolved.

r effective which did not involve the grant to the regulating authority of the power to dictate the establishment from time to time of stopping-places GRAND TRUNK RY. Co. TURE OF ONTARIO. Duff J. for the reception and discharge of traffic....

AI summary The court ruled that legislative intent should be determined solely by the text of enacted laws, not policy considerations. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing that courts cannot infer legislative motives beyond explicit provisions. Reference was made to Salomon v. Salomon, highlighting the importance of textual interpretation over speculative intent.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Appellant v. Alexander Vavilov Respondent and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Canadian Council for Ref...

AI summary The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appeals a decision related to immigration policy, with Alexander Vavilov as the respondent. Multiple interveners, including provincial attorneys general and advocacy groups, are involved. The case is indexed as Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, with file number 37748, heard before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Cases Cited By Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. Considered: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Lukács , 2018 SCC 2, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 6;...

AI summary The document lists cases cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts, including immigration, privacy, and railway-related rulings. Key cases include Baker v. Canada and Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers' Association , highlighting legal precedents in administrative law and rights.

Authors Cited Arthurs, H. W. "Protection against Judicial Review" (1983), 43 R. du B. 277. Barak, Aharon. "Overruling Precedent" (1986), 21 Is.L.R. 269. Biddulph, Michelle. "Rethinking the Ramification of Reasonableness Review: Stare Decis...

AI summary The document lists legal scholars and their works on topics including judicial review, administrative law, and international law. Key authors include H.W. Arthurs, Aharon Barak, Michelle Biddulph, Tom Bingham, and others, with references to publications on reasonableness review, statelessness, and citizenship legislation.

I. Need for Clarification and Simplification of the Law of Judicial Review [4] Over the past decades, the law relating to judicial review of administrative decisions in Canada has been characterized by continuously evolving jurisprudence a...

AI summary The law of judicial review in Canada has evolved through ongoing academic debate, emphasizing the balance between administrative decision-making, courts, and individual rights. The increasing role of statutory delegates in public administration highlights the need for legal clarity and simplification.

cept where giving effect to that intent is precluded by the rule of law. The starting point for the analysis is a presumption that the legislature intended the standard of review to be reasonableness. - [24] Parliament and the provincial l...

AI summary The text establishes a presumption that reasonableness is the standard for reviewing administrative decisions, emphasizing legislative intent to empower administrative bodies with minimal judicial interference, while acknowledging constitutional protections under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It cites cases like Dunsmuir and Alberta Teachers, highlighting judicial restraint and the evolving jurisprudence on reasonableness review.

(2) Statutory Appeal Mechanisms [36] We have reaffirmed that, to the extent possible, the standard of review analysis requires courts to give effect to the legislature's institutional design choices to delegate authority through statute. I...

AI summary The text reaffirms that courts must respect legislative intent in statutory appeal mechanisms, performing an appellate function rather than applying reasonableness review. It cites Seneca College v. Bhadauria to emphasize that legislative provision of appeals signals judicial scrutiny, rebutting the presumption of deference. The Attorney General of Quebec argues that deference should not undermine the legislature's intended decision-making process.

"yes" and "no" — the courts must step in to provide a determinative answer to the question without according deference to the administrative decision maker: factum of the amici curiae , at para. 91. [72] We are not persuaded that the Court...

AI summary The court declines to create a new correctness standard for legal questions with internal administrative discord, citing Domtar and Ellis-Don cases. It emphasizes reasonableness review and legislative oversight to prevent legal incoherence, rejecting the amici curiae ’s hypothetical scenario of decision-maker-driven legal inconsistency.

e content of the duty of procedural fairness in a particular case, one aspect of which is whether written reasons are required. Those factors include: (1) the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it; (2) the...

AI summary The text discusses procedural fairness and the requirement for written reasons in administrative decisions, referencing cases like Baker and Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah . It emphasizes factors determining the need for written reasons, such as decision impact and statutory context, and notes that reasons serve similar purposes in administrative and judicial contexts.

not pose a problem for the reasonableness standard, because each decision must be both justified by the administrative body and evaluated by reviewing courts in relation to its own particular context. - D. Formal Reasons for a Decision Sho...

AI summary The reasonableness standard in administrative law must account for the specific context of each decision. Courts should not require administrative bodies to provide perfect reasons, as their language and approach may reflect specialized expertise. The focus is on evaluating decisions within their institutional and procedural context rather than applying judicial standards.

(1) A Reasonable Decision Is Based on an Internally Coherent Reasoning [102] To be reasonable, a decision must be based on reasoning that is both rational and logical. It follows that a failure in this respect may lead a reviewing court to...

AI summary The text outlines that a reasonable administrative decision must demonstrate internal coherence and logical reasoning. Reviewing courts must trace the decision-maker's rationale without encountering fatal logical flaws, citing cases like Irving Pulp & Paper and Wright v. Nova Scotia . Insufficient reasoning, logical fallacies, or irrational analysis invalidate decisions, emphasizing the necessity of a rational chain of analysis.

(a) Governing Statutory Scheme [108] Because administrative decision makers receive their powers by statute, the governing statutory scheme is likely to be the most salient aspect of the legal context relevant to a particular decision. Tha...

AI summary Administrative decision-makers must adhere to statutory schemes, as they cannot override laws enacted by legislatures. Discretion is bounded by statutory purposes and constraints, with judicial precedents emphasizing compliance. Key cases include Catalyst , Green , and Roncarelli v. Duplessis , underscoring that discretion is not absolute and must align with legislative intent.

Nova Steel Inc. v. Conares Metal Supply Ltd. , 2019 FCA 52., in which Laskin J.A., after analyzing the reasoning of the administrative decision maker (at paras. 26-61 (CanLII)), held that the decision maker's interpretation had been unreas...

AI summary In Nova Steel Inc. v. Conares Metal Supply Ltd., 2019 FCA 52, Laskin J.A. found the administrative decision maker's interpretation unreasonable, emphasizing that the factors overwhelmingly favored the opposite interpretation. The court concluded that remitting the issue to the original decision maker was unnecessary.

(d) Evidence Before the Decision Maker [125] It is trite law that the decision maker may assess and evaluate the evidence before it and that, absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not interfere with its factual findings....

AI summary The decision maker's assessment of evidence is generally not subject to re-evaluation by reviewing courts, except in exceptional cases. Decisions must be reasonable based on the evidence, and misapprehending evidence can render a decision unreasonable. Cases like CHRC, Khosa, Dr. Q, Housen, Dunsmuir, and Baker are cited to support these principles.

e reasonable if that departure is justified, thereby reducing the risk of arbitrariness, which would undermine public confidence in administrative decision makers and in the justice system as a whole. [132] As discussed above, it has been...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of justifying departures from past administrative decisions to avoid arbitrariness and maintain public confidence. It emphasizes reviewing courts' role in addressing persistent legal discord within administrative bodies, encouraging internal resolution of disagreements, and highlighting the challenges of sustaining decisions that perpetuate such discord.

F. Review in the Absence of Reasons [136] Where the duty of procedural fairness or the legislative scheme mandates that reasons be given to the affected party but none have been given, this failure will generally require the decision to be...

AI summary The text discusses judicial review in the absence of reasons, emphasizing that decisions without reasons are often set aside, but courts can still assess reasonableness by examining the record. Cases like Catalyst and Roncarelli are cited to illustrate scenarios where rationale can be inferred or where lack of reasons leads to invalidation.

(1) Standard of Review [169] Applying the standard of review analysis set out above leads to the conclusion that the standard to be applied in reviewing the merits of the Registrar's decision is reasonableness. [170] When a court reviews t...

AI summary The court applies the reasonableness standard of review to the Registrar's decision, noting it is a judicial review under the Citizenship Act, not an appeal, and no other standard was prescribed by Parliament. The decision lacks constitutional or jurisdictional issues, affirming reasonableness as the applicable standard.

D. Conclusion [194] Multiple legal and factual constraints may bear on a given administrative decision, and these constraints may interact with one another. In some cases, a failure to justify the decision against any one relevant constrai...

AI summary The court upholds the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to quash the Registrar's interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act, finding her failure to justify the decision against legal constraints unreasonable. The conclusion is that Parliament did not intend the provision to apply to children of non-diplomatic individuals.

ations for the extent to which reviewing courts may substitute their views for those of administrative decisionmakers. At its core, it is a debate over two distinct philosophies of administrative law. [206] The story of modern Canadian adm...

AI summary The text discusses the evolution of Canadian administrative law, focusing on the shift from a court-centric philosophy (Dicey's rule of law) to greater deference to administrative bodies. It highlights the influence of Albert Venn Dicey and the landmark case Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission , which entrenched nondeferential judicial review through 'jurisdictional error' checks.

The Majority's Reasons [230] The majority's framework rests on a flawed and incomplete conceptual account of judicial review, one that unjustifiably ignores the specialized expertise of administrative decision-makers. Although the majority...

AI summary The majority's approach to judicial review is criticized for ignoring administrative expertise and legislative intent. It is argued that the framework undermines deference to specialized decision-makers and misinterprets the rule of law, referencing cases like Dunsmuir and Southam to emphasize the importance of institutional advantages in administrative law.

on, make a genuine effort to understand why the decision was made, and give the decision a fair and generous construction in light of the entire record ( Newfoundland Nurses , at paras. 11-14 and 17). - [289] Second, deference affects how...

AI summary The text emphasizes judicial deference to administrative decisions, arguing courts should not substitute their own judgment but assess if decisions are unreasonable. It references cases like Newfoundland Nurses , Khosa , and Dunsmuir , highlighting that reasonableness review focuses on the administrative decision's validity rather than hypothetical correct outcomes.

icial agents working for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr. Vavilov's parents were "other representative[s] or employee[s] in Canada of a foreign government" within the meaning of s. 3(2)(a). - [322] The Federal Court ([2016] 2 F.C...

AI summary Mr. Vavilov's citizenship was challenged under s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which excludes individuals born to foreign government representatives. The Federal Court upheld the Registrar's decision, but the Federal Court of Appeal quashed it, finding the Registrar's interpretation of the provision unreasonable. The case centers on the scope of 'foreign government representatives' and the standard of review for administrative decisions.

ded to diplomats and their families, which are by their very nature inconsistent with the obligations of citizenship, that a person who enjoys diplomatic status cannot acquire citizenship" (para. 63). [338] The Registrar's reasons failed t...

AI summary The text discusses a legal dispute over the interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) of an immigration-related statute, focusing on the Registrar's failure to address Mr. Vavilov's argument that the terms 'other representative' and 'employee' should be narrowly construed. It highlights the analyst's misunderstanding of the policy objectives and the relevance of the Al-Ghamdi decision, which was not properly considered in the analysis.

Doctrine et autres documents cités - Canada. Chambre des communes. Sous-comité sur la révision du droit d'auteur du Comité permanent des communications et de la culture. Une charte des droits des créateurs et créatrices : Rapport du Sousco...

AI summary The document lists legal references and a Federal Court of Appeal case involving telecommunications companies appealing a copyright-related decision. Key parties include Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw, and Bell Media. The appeal was allowed, with dissenting opinions from several judges, citing legal texts and regulatory policies.

ses pouvoirs d'attribuer ou de révoquer une licence, il est établi qu'il jouit d'une grande discrétion » : Société Radio-Canada c. Métromédia CMR Montréal Inc. (1999), 254 N.R. 266 (C.A.F.), par. 2. [101] La vaste compétence dont jouit le...

AI summary The text discusses the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) broad discretionary powers under section 3(1) and related provisions. It references court decisions ( Société Radio-Canada c. Métromédia CMR Montréal Inc. , Ligue de la radiodiffusion canadienne c. Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes ) affirming the CRTC's authority to enact regulations and impose licence conditions aligned with statutory objectives.

pawnor's personal information to the BWI database, and that the City of Edmonton had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard pawnors' personal information. In the result, the Commissioner held that the City of Edmonton and EPS contravened...

AI summary The court quashed the Commissioner's orders, including the destruction of BWI's database, finding no reviewable error in his decision to continue the inquiry despite missing statutory time limits. The court deemed the 90-day limit directory, not mandatory, and applied a reasonableness standard of review.

y a decision on judicial review which dealt specifically with the issue of whether the time lines in the legislation were mandatory or directory. Because of the position which it taken on this hearing with respect to the applicable statute...

AI summary The Commissioner analyzes the standard of review for statutory timelines, referencing Kellogg Brown and Root and Belzil J.'s interpretation of statutory deadlines. While Belzil J.'s language implies a reasonableness standard, the Commissioner notes his lack of explicit endorsement for loss-of-jurisdiction issues. The court applies Pushpanathan and Dunsmuir principles to conduct its own standard-of-review analysis.

t appeal board. Further, council of each municipality must establish procedures and must prescribe the functions and duties of the subdivision and development appeal board for that municipal district. Section 687(3) of the MGA provides tha...

AI summary Section 687(3) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) outlines the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board's (SDAB) authority to review appeals, including compliance with land use policies, consideration of regulations, and power to override bylaws if justified. The SDAB may confirm, revoke, or modify decisions and issue permits even when proposals conflict with bylaws.