Chandler v. Alberta association of architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848 (1989)

Supreme Court of Canada

Linked as:

Extract


Chandler v. Alberta association of architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848 (1989)

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects,

[1989] 2 S.C.R. 848

IN THE MATTER of an application for an order for prohibition;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Architects Act,

being chapter A-44.1 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 1980, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Practice Review Board of the Alberta Association of Architects;

BETWEEN

Sheldon Harvey Chandler, S. H. Chandler

Architect Ltd., Gordon Gerald Kennedy,

G. G. Kennedy Architect Ltd., Brian

William Kilpatrick, Brian W. Kilpatrick

Architect Ltd., Peter Juergen Dandyk and

Peter J. Dandyk Architect Ltd. Appellants v.

Alberta Association of Architects,

the Practice Review Board of the Alberta

Association of Architects, Trevor H. Edwards,

James P. M. Waugh and Mary K. Green Respondents indexed as: chandler v. alberta association of architects

File No.: 19722.

1989: January 30; 1989: October 12.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

Administrative law -- Boards and tribunals -- Jurisdiction -- Continuation of original proceedings -- Functus officio -- Inquiry into the practices of a firm of architects -- Board conducting a valid hearing but issuing ultra vires findings and orders -- Board's findings and orders quashed -- Board failing to consider whether it should make recommendations as required by legislation -- Whether Board empowered to continue original proceedings -- Architects Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. A-44.1, s. 39(3) -- Alberta Regulation, 175/83, s. 11(1).

Pursuant to s. 39 of the Architects Act, the Practice Review Board of the Alberta Association of Architects conducted a hearing to review the practices of a firm of architects which went bankrupt and issued a report. Although the hearing was intended to be a practice review, the Board, in its report, made 21 findings of unprofessional conduct against the firm and six of the architects, levied fines, imposed suspensions and ordered them to pay the costs of the hearing. The Court of Queen's Bench allowed appellants' application for certiorari and quashed the Board's findings and orders. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to make findings or orders relating to disciplinary matters or costs. Under s. 39(3) of the Act, the Board is simply responsible for reporting to the Council of the Alberta Association of Architects and for making appropriate recommendations.

The Board notified the appellants that it intended to continue the original hearing to consider whether a further report should be prepared for consideration by the Council and whether the matter should be referred to the Complaint Review Committee. The Court of Queen's Bench allowed appellants' application to prohibit the Board from proceeding further in the matter. The court found that the Board had completed and fulfilled its function and that it was therefore functus officio. The Court of Appeal vacated...

See the full content of this document


ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2014, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex Canada

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company