Lum v. Review Panel of the Council of the Alberta Dental Association and College, (2015) 611 A.R. 369 (QB)

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 12, 2014
• Citations: (2015), 611 A.R. 369 (QB);2015 ABQB 276

Lum v. Dental Assoc. (2015), 611 A.R. 369 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MY.025

Dr. Patrick Lum (plaintiff/applicant) v. Review Panel of the Council of the Alberta Dental Association and College (defendant/respondent)

(1303 01313; 2015 ABQB 276)

Indexed As: Lum v. Review Panel of the Council of the Alberta Dental Association and College

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

April 29, 2015.

Summary:

Lum had been registered to practice dentistry in British Columbia since 1999. In 2011, he applied for registration with the Alberta Dental Association and College (ADAC). The Registrar of the ADAC denied the application. A Review Panel dismissed Lum's appeal. Lum applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2015), 604 A.R. 117, dismissed the application. The Registrar applied for costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the Registrar costs at double Column 1 of Schedule C to the Rules of Court plus disbursements.

Administrative Law - Topic 3349

Judicial review - General - Practice - Costs - Lum was registered to practice dentistry in British Columbia - He applied for registration with the Alberta Dental Association and College (ADAC) - The Registrar of the ADAC denied the application - A Review Panel dismissed Lum's appeal - Lum's application for judicial review was dismissed - The Registrar sought costs at triple Column 1 of Schedule C to the Rules of Court - Lum argued that there should be no costs award or only costs on single Column 1 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the judicial review was difficult and complex because it raised two standard of review arguments: that to be used by the Review Panel in reviewing the Registrar's decision, and that to be used by the court in reviewing the Review Panel's decision - There was also a novel argument concerning the application of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement to professional registration applications - However, these factors did not raise the application to the level of public interest litigation - The application as a whole was pursued in Lum's interests and for no other purpose - Column 1 would attract $1,000 for a judicial review application, which the court found to be "very light" - In effect, judicial reviews were more in line with appeals, which would result in costs of $3,200 for Column 1 - Accordingly, the court awarded the Registrar costs at double Column 1 plus disbursements.

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Practice - Topic 7029.5

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Public interest or test case - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Practice - Topic 7114

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Novel or important issues - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Practice - Topic 7115

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Difficulty and complexity of proceedings - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Practice - Topic 7118.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Multiplier - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sussman v. College of Alberta Psychologists (2010), 502 A.R. 64; 517 W.A.C. 64; 2010 ABCA 356, refd to. [para. 6].

Pharand Ski Corp. v. Alberta (1991), 122 A.R. 395 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Eggertson v. Alberta Teachers' Association (2003), 327 A.R. 92; 296 W.A.C. 92; 2003 ABCA 101, refd to. [para. 6].

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 v. Finning International Inc. et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 493; 2006 ABQB 594, refd to. [para. 6].

Meleshko v. Alberta et al. (2013), 557 A.R. 98; 2013 ABQB 468, refd to. [para. 6].

Keller v. Bighorn No. 8 (Municipal District) et al. (2013), 564 A.R. 328; 2013 ABQB 374, refd to. [para. 6].

Northland Material Handling Inc. et al. v. Parkland (County) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 688; 2012 ABQB 586, refd to. [para. 6].

Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Municipal Government Board (Alta.) et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 411; 2003 ABCA 260, refd to. [para. 6].

Broers v. Real Estate Council of Alberta et al. (2010), 498 A.R. 190; 2010 ABQB 774, refd to. [para. 6].

Louw v. Hamelin-Chandler, [2012] A.R. Uned. 84; 2012 ABQB 52, refd to. [para. 6].

Harris v. Minister of National Revenue (2001), 214 F.T.R. 1; 2001 FCT 1408, refd to. [para. 6].

Pauli et al. v. ACE INA Insurance Co. et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 348; 329 W.A.C. 348; 2004 ABCA 253, refd to. [para. 6].

Kennedy (B.E.) Design Ltd. et al. v. Kibo Group Inc. et al. (2001), 304 A.R. 2; 2001 ABQB 32, refd to. [para. 6].

Potato Growers of Alberta v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency et al. (2005), 385 A.R. 73; 2005 ABQB 530, refd to. [para. 16].

Zaretski v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1997), 156 Sask.R. 23 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Boissoin et al. v. Lund et al. (2010), 488 A.R. 41; 2010 ABQB 123, refd to. [para. 16].

Keller v. Bighorn No. 8 (Municipal District) et al. (2010), 481 A.R. 93; 2010 ABQB 362, refd to. [para. 16].

Northland Material Handling Inc. et al. v. Parkland (County) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 448; 2012 ABQB 407, refd to. [para. 16].

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 99 v. Finning International Inc. et al., 2008 ABQB 987, refd to. [para. 16].

V.A.H. v. Lynch et al. (2001), 277 A.R. 104; 242 W.A.C. 104; 2001 ABCA 37, refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

Craig D. Bavis (Victory Square Law Office LLP), for the applicant, Dr. Lum;

James Casey, Q.C., and Chelsey L. Bailey (Field LLP), for the respondent, Registrar of the Alberta Dental Association and College;

David N. Jardine (Shores Jardine LLP), for the respondent, Review Panel.

This application was heard on September 12, 2014, before Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on April 29, 2015.