22 total
Tribunal had implied authority to reconsider authorizations but breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate disclosure.
The applicants, competitors in the wastewater treatment system market, sought judicial review of a decision by the Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC) to amend their previously granted authorizations.
The BMEC initiated the review on its own motion due to interpretation difficulties and potential health and safety concerns.
The Divisional Court held that while the BMEC lacked express statutory authority to amend the authorizations outside of specific conditions, it possessed implied legislative authority to reconsider its decisions where public health and safety warranted, and was therefore not functus officio.
However, the Court quashed the BMEC's decision, finding that the BMEC breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicants with adequate notice and disclosure of the information underlying the proposed amendments, thereby depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Application for judicial review challenging twenty-minute time limit on inmate telephone calls dismissed.
The applicants, inmates awaiting trial at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, brought an application for judicial review challenging the implementation of a new telephone system that imposed an automatic twenty-minute time limit on outgoing calls.
They argued this restriction violated their freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter and section 5 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.
The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no statutory or Charter breach, and held that any such breach would be saved by section 1 of the Charter.
A dissenting judge would have allowed the application for pre-trial inmates, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.