Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.), (1994) 74 O.A.C. 26 (CA)

• Judge: Brooke, Finlayson and Laskin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 23, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26 (CA);1994 CanLII 3360 (ON CA);1994 CanLII 3360 (NS CA);19 OR (3d) 483;118 DLR (4th) 129;27 Admin LR (2d) 118;[1994] CarswellOnt 1019;[1994] OJ No 1803 (QL);49 ACWS (3d) 844;74 OAC 26

Howe v. Chartered Accountants (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O 1990, c. J-1, ss. 2, 4 and 6(1)

And In The Matter Of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario made on July 19, 1993

Michael Norman Howe (applicant/appellant) v. The Professional Conduct Committee and The Discipline Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (respondents/respondents on appeal)

(No. C18745)

Indexed As: Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Brooke, Finlayson and Laskin, JJ.A.

August 23, 1994.

Summary:

Howe, a member of the Institute of Char­tered Accountants of Ontario (ICAO), was charged by ICAO with, inter alia, failing to perform his professional services with due care (see paragraph 3). Before the charge was heard, Howe applied to the Chair of the Discipline Committee for disclosure of a report that arose out of an investigation of the charges against Howe. The Chair dis­missed the applica­tion (see paragraph 6). Howe applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application (see paragraph 7). Howe appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with Laskin, J.A., dissenting.

Administrative Law - Topic 9117

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Review of interlocutory orders - [See Professional Occupations - Topic 210 ].

Professional Occupations - Topic 210

Boards and tribunals - Domestic tribunals, judicial review of decisions of - Interlocu­tory orders - Howe, a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (ICAO), was charged by ICAO with, inter alia, failing to perform his professional services with due care (see paragraph 3) - Before the charge was heard, Howe unsuccessfully applied to ICAO for disclosure of an investigative report concerning the charges - Howe applied for judicial review - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the application for judicial review - The Court of Appeal noted that the dismissal of Howe's application by ICAO was an inter­locutory order and it stated that the appli­cation for judicial review was premature (see paragraph 13).

Cases Noticed:

Slavutych - see Slavutch.

Slavutch v. Board of Governors of the University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224, refd to. [paras. 6, 45].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 10, 39].

Gage v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 47; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 537 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 13, 65].

Roosma and Weller et al. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 84; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 90 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [paras. 14, 61].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321; 138 N.R. 1; 55 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 14, 58].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board (No. 2), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 489; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 33].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214; [1980] 3 W.W.R. 125; 18 B.C.L.R. 124; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 311, refd to. [para. 33].

Latimer (W.D.) Co. Ltd. v. Bray (1975), 6 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Emerson v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1983), 44 O.R.(2d) 729 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) v. House et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 72 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

Markandey v. Ontario Board of Opthalmic Dispensers (1994), O.C.J. 484 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

Williams et al. v. Correctional Service of Canada et al. (1993), 149 N.R. 140; F.C.J. No. 21 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Winters v. Canada (Regional Transfer Board) - see Williams et al. v. Correc­tional Service of Canada et al.

Brett et al. v. Board of Directors of Phys­iotherapy (1992), 56 O.A.C. 29; 9 O.R.(3d) 613 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

Nrecaj v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 3 F.C. 630; 65 F.T.R. 171 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 41].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,011, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 45].

Bergwitz v. Fast (1980), 18 B.C.L.R. 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Artinian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1990), 40 O.A.C. 51; 73 O.R.(2d) 704 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 48].

Napoli v. Workers' Compensation Board (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 179 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Hamulka v. Golfman (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 189; 5 W.W.R. 597 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Swerhone v. Brost et al. (1988), 68 Sask.R. 260; 25 C.P.C.(2d) 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Syndicat des employés professionnels de l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471; 148 N.R. 209; 53 Q.A.C. 171, refd to. [para. 56].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 58].

University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

Carter v. Residential Tenancy Commis­sioner (Ont.) et al. (1988), 32 O.A.C. 328; 66 O.R.(2d) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Carter v. Phillips - see Carter v. Residen­tial Tenancy Commissioner (Ont.) et al.

Prousky v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1987), 61 O.R.(2d) 37 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 62 O.R.(2d) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 61].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 62].

People First of Ontario et al. v. Regional Coroner of Niagara et al. (1992), 50 O.A.C. 90; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 174 (Div. Ct.), revd. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 187; 87 D.L.R.(4th) 765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director) (1985), 63 N.R. 353; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 44 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Chad Investments Ltd. v. Longson, Tammets and Denton Real Estate Ltd. (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 627 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Canada v. Spalding, [1955] 5 D.L.R. 374 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 41].

Chartered Accountants Act 1956, generally [para. 22].

Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-22, sect. 8 [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

de Smith, S.A., Judicial Review of Ad­min­istrative Action (4th Ed. 1980)(J.M. Evans ed.), pp. 203 [para. 34]; 425 to 426 [para. 64].

Jones, David Philip, Discretionary Refusal of Judicial Review in Administrative Law (1981), 19 Alta. L. Rev. 483, gen­erally [para. 70].

MacKenzie, Gavin, Lawyers and Ethics, Professional Responsibility and Disci­pline (1993), p. 26-13 [para. 48].

Martin Report - see Report of the At­tor­ney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Dis­closure and Reso­lution Discussions, 1993.

Mullan, David, Natural Justice: The Chal­lenges of Nicholson, Deference, Theory and the Charter, in Recent Developments in Administrative Law (1987)(Finkelstein and Rogers ed.), p. 1, paras. 21 to 24 [para. 39].

Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Dis­closure and Resolution Discussions, 1993 (Martin Report), pp. 195 to 197 [para. 71].

Sopinka, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 653ff [para. 44].

Steinecke and Posluns, Professional Mis­conduct Proceedings (1988), 9 The Ad­vocates Quarterly 160, p. 175 [para. 48].

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1940), vol. 8, para. 2285 [paras. 6, 45].

Counsel:

J. Edgar Sexton, Q.C., and D. Aleck Dadson, for the appellant;

W. Ian Binnie, Q.C., and Robert Fenton, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 28 and 29, 1994, before Brooke, Finlayson and Laskin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the court was released on August 23, 1994, and the following opinions were filed:

Finlayson, J.A. (Brooke, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 16;

Laskin, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 17 to 73.