2019

In our November 27, 2018 article, we commented on the Federal Court’s decision in Girouard v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 865, which determined that a recommendation by the Canadian Judicial Council for the removal of a judge is subject to judicial review. On appeal, this decision was recently upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal (2019 FCA 148).

In Shuttleworth v. Ontario (Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals), 2019 ONCA 518, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated that peer review processes for administrative decision-making must be accompanied by robust protections to safeguard independence.

In MacLean v. Workers Compensation (PEI), 2019 PECA 9, the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal found that the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) acted reasonably when it refused to allow a worker to relitigate matters that had been previously decided.

In SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. v Canada (Public Prosecution Service), 2019 FC 282 (CanLII) the Federal Court found that a decision not to offer an invitation to negotiate a remediation agreement falls under the ambit of prosecutorial discretion and is not subject to judicial review.1

In Mazraani v Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc., 2018 SCC 50, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that there is a duty on judges of the Tax Court of Canada to ensure that the language rights of participants in the court process are protected.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the first lobbying law in Canada. In 1989, Parliament enacted the Lobbyists Registration Act and it was proclaimed into force on September 30, 1989. That legislation is now known as the Lobbying Act.

On November 16 and 17, more than 170 practitioners, academics and tribunal members gathered in Ottawa to attend the annual CBA Administrative Law, Labour and Employment Law conference.

In the companion appeals of Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada1 and Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University2

In Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26, the Supreme Court of Canada helpfully clarified that in order for a decision to be subject to judicial review, it must be a public decision by a state actor and, in so doing, held that a disfellowship decision by the Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses was not subject to judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court in Trost v Conservative Party of Canada, 2018 ONSC 2733, provided another welcome clarification on what can be subject to judicial review when it held that a political party is not subject to judicial review as it is not a state actor, and in so doing refused to follow an earlier decision of the court which had judicially reviewed a decision of the New Democratic Party.