Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII? – August 2023

At the beginning of each month, we tell you which three English-language cases and French-language cases have been the most viewed* on CanLII in the previous month and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about. 

For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were:

1. AA v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONLSTH 99

[77] We find that significant time has passed since the serious misconduct that took place in 2009 and that his actions since 2017 show a sincere and concerted attempt to address not only the historical sexual misconduct but also to address his failure to be candid, forthright, and open about that misconduct with his family, medical practitioners, and the Law Society during the initial licensing process.

[…]

[81] In light of the above, the panel finds that the applicant has established that he is currently of good character, and we grant his application to be licensed, subject to the following term and condition: that the applicant will not meet with minor children while unsupervised.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Burgener v Law Society of Alberta, 2023 ABCA 227

[1] The appellant, a lawyer, was found guilty by a Hearing Committee of the Law Society of Alberta of conduct deserving of sanction on 14 citations. He was disbarred and ordered to pay costs, and the matter was referred to the Attorney General for possible criminal prosecution. His appeal to an Appeal Panel of the Benchers of the Law Society was dismissed. He has appealed that decision to this Court.

[2] Nine years and two months elapsed between the initial complaint to the Law Society in January 2007 and the decision of the Hearing Committee to disbar the appellant in March 2016. The key issues on this appeal arise out of that lengthy delay. In particular, the issues are whether the delay itself amounted to an abuse of process, and whether the manner in which the delay was addressed (or not addressed) raises fairness concerns with respect to the appellant or the public interest.

[3] The appellant also advanced several other grounds of appeal, many of which challenge findings of fact or allege procedural or evidentiary errors by the Hearing Committee. We have reviewed those grounds and conclude that none of them disclose reviewable error. These reasons therefore focus only on the issues surrounding delay.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Ingram v Alberta (Chief Medical Officer of Health), 2023 ABKB 453

[1] This application involves challenges to certain orders enacted by the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Alberta (CMOH), Dr. Deena Hinshaw, with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic (the “impugned Orders”), both on a constitutional basis and on the basis that the orders were ultra vires the Public Health Act RSA 2000, c. P-37.

[2] I find that the impugned Orders were ultra vires the Public Health Act.

[3] The Public Health Act requires that decisions with respect to public health orders must be made by the CMOH, or her statutorily- authorized delegate. The final decisions implemented by the impugned Orders in this case were made by the cabinet of the government of Alberta or by committees of cabinet. While the CMOH made recommendations and implemented the decisions of the cabinet and committees through the impugned Orders, she deferred the final decision making to cabinet.

[4] Although, Dr. Hinshaw was maligned during the pandemic and afterwards as the symbol of the restrictions, she was not in fact the final decision-maker. The delegation of her final decision-making authority to cabinet is not permitted by section 29 of the Public Health Act.

[5] However, had the impugned Orders been validly enacted by the CMOH, they would not have been unconstitutional. While they may have infringed certain of the Applicants’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 and the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14, these limitations were amply and demonstrably justified as reasonable limits in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1 of the Charter and that they were enacted pursuant to a valid legislative purpose.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The three most-consulted French-language decisions were:

1. Appartements Bellevue inc. c. Filteau, 2021 QCTAL 28412

[1] Par un recours déposé le 20 septembre 2021, la locatrice demande la rétractation d’une décision rendue le 2 septembre 2021 par le juge administratif Luk Dufort, à la suite d’une audience tenue le 27 août 2021 en l’absence de la locatrice.

[2] Considérant l’absence de la locatrice à l’audience ainsi que l’absence de preuve, le juge administratif Dufort a rejeté la demande de rétractation de la locatrice, laquelle visait à rétracter une autre décision rendue le 14 juillet 2021 par la juge administrative Isabelle Hébert.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Protection de la jeunesse — 226231, 2022 QCCA 1653

[4] Les appelants se pourvoient avec permission contre un jugement rendu le 1^er février 2021 par la Cour supérieure, district de Longueuil (l’honorable Yves Poirier), lequel accueille l’appel d’un jugement de la Cour du Québec et restreint certaines ordonnances rendues par la juge de la Cour du Québec, Chambre de la jeunesse, afin qu’elles ne s’appliquent qu’à l’enfant dont les droits ont été lésés.

[5] Outre la question relative à la norme de contrôle, la question principale soulevée par ce pourvoi est de savoir si un juge de la Cour du Québec peut, à titre de mesure réparatrice, ordonner des mesures qui vont au-delà de la simple situation de l’enfant dont les droits ont été lésés et si ce juge peut également ordonner des mesures visant à ce que la situation vécue par cette enfant ne se reproduise plus.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Quebec English School Boards Association c. Procureur général du Québec, 2023 QCCS 2965

[1] Les demandeurs s’adressent à la Cour supérieure pour faire déclarer inopérants à leur égard les articles 50, 52, 66, 91, 93, 105, 142, 196, 208, 212, 216, 329 et 330 de la Loi modifiant principalement la Loi sur l’instruction publique relativement à l’organisation et à la gouvernance scolaires, ainsi que l’article 473.1 de la Loi sur l’instruction publique. À leur avis, ces dispositions portent atteinte aux droits qui leurs seraient conférés par l’article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.

[2] La Loi est celle qui a remplacé, tant pour le secteur francophone que pour le secteur anglophone, les commissions scolaires par des « centres de services scolaires ».

[3] Les demandeurs soutiennent entre autres que les modifications apportées par la Loi à la composition du conseil d’administration des centres de services scolaires ainsi qu’au processus de nomination de ses membres ferait en sorte que les ayants-droits de l’article 23 n’auraient plus le pouvoir de gestion et de contrôle exclusif sur les établissements d’enseignement anglophones du Québec.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

* As of January 2014, we measure the total amount of time spent on the pages rather than simply the number of hits; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.