Katz v. Vancouver Stock Exchange, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 405

Andrew Sim Katz Appellant

v.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange,

the British Columbia Securities Commission

and the Superintendent of Brokers Respondents

and

The Attorney General of Manitoba and

the Attorney General of British Columbia Interveners

Indexed as: Katz v. Vancouver Stock Exchange

File No.: 25014.

1996: October 3.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Administrative law ‑‑ Reasonable apprehension of bias ‑‑ Securities ‑‑ Citation against appellant for contravention of certain by‑laws and exchange rules ‑‑ Hearing panel appointed to conduct inquiry ‑‑ Appointment process for hearing panel not giving rise to reasonable apprehension of bias.

Cases Cited

Distinguished: Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, 1995 CanLII 145 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1995), 1995 CanLII 703 (BC CA), 14 B.C.L.R. (3d) 66, 128 D.L.R. (4th) 424, 34 Admin. L.R. (2d) 1, 9 C.C.L.S. 112, affirming a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission. Appeal dismissed.

Gary S. Snarch and Murray Braithwaite, for the appellant.

Larry R. Jackie, for the respondent the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Mark L. Skwarok, for the respondent the British Columbia Securities Commission.

Donna J. Miller, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.

George H. Copley, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Iacobucci J.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1 Iacobucci J. ‑‑ We agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the practice of the tribunal in question is one of the many factors to consider in determining whether the necessary degree of independence is present to avoid creating a perception of reasonable apprehension of bias. We also agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the situation in this case, particularly its self‑regulatory context, is quite different from that which was present in Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indians Band, 1995 CanLII 145 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3.

2 Consequently, for these reasons and substantially for the reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, we would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Snarch & Allen, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondent the Vancouver Stock Exchange: Ladner, Downs, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent the British Columbia Securities Commission: Mark L. Skwarok, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria.