Fooks and Johnstone v. Alberta Association of Architects, (1982) 38 A.R. 132 (QB)

• Judge: Stratton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 22, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 38 A.R. 132 (QB)

Fooks v. Architects Assoc. (1982), 38 A.R. 132 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Fooks and Johnstone v. Alberta Association of Architects

(No. 8203 00773)

Indexed As: Fooks and Johnstone v. Alberta Association of Architects

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Stratton, J.

July 22, 1982.

Summary:

Fooks and Johnstone applied for an order in the nature of certiorari, to quash an order made by the council of the Alberta Association of Architects. Fooks and Johnstone were registered architects and members of the Alberta Association. Formal complaints against them were filed with the professional guidance committee. Following a hearing of the complaints, the committee made recommendations to the council. The council considered the recommendations and suspended Fooks from the practice of architecture and ordered that Johnstone pay a fine and be placed on probation. Both applied for certiorari on the grounds that they did not receive a full and proper hearing contrary to the rules of natural justice and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias at the hearing and later before council. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and quashed the order made by council.

Administrative Law - Topic 5003

Judicial review - Certiorari - General principles - When available to the parties - Complaints against two architects were filed with a professional guidance committee - Following a hearing of the complaints, the committee made recommendations to the architects' council - Council considered the recommendations and made an order against the architects - The architects applied for an order of certiorari to quash the order - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that council's order was the result of a two step procedure and that the order could be quashed where reviewable errors were established on the part of the committee or the council - See paragraph 13.

Administrative Law - Topic 5003

Judicial review - Certiorari - General principles - When available to the parties - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that certiorari was available to review disciplinary action against architects by an architects' association because association's decision affected the rights, interests, property, privileges and liberties of the architects - See paragraphs 12 and 14.

Administrative Law - Topic 5189

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretionary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - An architect was suspended from practice by an order of the architects' council - The architect filed a notice of appeal under the Architects Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 22 - The architect also applied to certiorari to have the order quashed because of bias - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the right of appeal did not bar the certiorari application - The court stated that the appeal was not an adequate alternative remedy, because the appeal court was restricted in its review to the record and could not consider the issue of bias - See paragraphs 17, 33, 35 and 37.

Administrative Law - Topic 2489

Natural justice - Procedure at hearing - Exclusion of witnesses (including parties) - Complaints against two architects were filed with a professional guidance committee - At the hearing of the complaints, the architects were excluded from the proceedings during each other's testimony - Following the hearing, the architects' council made an order against the architects - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the order, because the exclusion of the architects during each other's testimony denied them a full and proper hearing - See paragraph 48.

Administrative Law - Topic 5014

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting - Breach of rules of natural justice - Complaints against two architects were filed with a professional guidance committee - At the hearing of the complaints the architects were excluded from the proceedings during each other's testimony - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the exclusion of the architects during each other's testimony was a breach of the rules of natural justice - The court stated that evidence disclosed at the hearing was material to each architects' case and each could not be said to be aware of the full case against him - See paragraphs 48 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board No. 2 (1979), 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385, consd. [para. 12].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. French (1974), 3 N.R. 410; D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Dancyger v. Alberta Pharmaceutical Association, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 371 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Harelkin v. University of Regina (1979), 26 N.R. 364; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, consd. [para. 20].

Edith Lake Service Ltd. and Hoyda Holdings Ltd. v. City of Edmonton (1982), 34 A.R. 390, consd. [para. 22].

Re Chad Investments Ltd. and Longson, Tammets & Denton Real Estate Ltd. (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 627, consd. [para. 23].

North American Montessori Academy Ltd. v. Development Appeal Board of the City of Edmonton (1978), 7 A.R. 39, consd. [para. 24].

Rozander Groeneveld v. Energy Resources Conservation Board and Calgary Power Ltd. (1978), 13 A.R. 461, consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Law Society of Alberta, ex parte Demco (1967), 64 D.L.R.(2d) 140, consd. [para. 26].

Connor v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1980] 4 W.W.R. 638, consd. [para. 27].

Winter v. Residential Tenancies Board (1980), 31 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 148, consd. [para. 28].

Kanda v. Government of Malaya, [1962] A.C. 322, consd. [para. 43].

Kane v. Board of Governors of University of British Columbia, [1980] 3 W.W.R. 125; 31 N.R. 214, consd. [para. 43].

Re Elliot and Governors of University of Alberta (1973), 37 D.L.R.(3d) 197 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), dist. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Architects Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 22, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 8, [para. 9].

Architects Act Regulations, Alta. Reg. 371/71, Bylaw 25(1), Bylaw 25(4)(b), Bylaw 6(a), Bylaw 7(a), Bylaw 7(b), Bylaw 7(c), Bylaw 8, Bylaw 9 [para. 9]; Bylaw 25(19)(a), Bylaw 25(19)(b), Bylaw 25(19)(d), Bylaw 25(19)(e) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

DeSmith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, p. 135 [para. 42].

Reid and David, Administrative Law and Practice (2nd Ed.), pp. 452 [para. 31]; 453 [para. 32].

Counsel:

D.J. Boyer, for the applicants;

S.L. Matthews, (Harper) for the respondent.

This application was heard before STRATTON, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on July 22, 1982.