top of page

Two Good Regulatory & Public Law Outcomes in August!

In the first, Maroofi v. Health Professions Review Board, the BC Supreme Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Health Professions Review Board. In so doing, the Court said this about the Health Professions Review Board’s reasons:

The Board’s reasons, 36 paragraphs in length, are carefully considered and well expressed, and contain no error of fact or law when measured against the voluminous evidentiary filings in front of me. Not only are the reasons not patently unreasonable, as they would have to be to be overturned, they appear to be sound. Dr. Maroofi has been accorded every opportunity to demonstrate procedural or substantive unfairness and legal error in how he has been treated by the Respondents, but I cannot find anything in the treatment he has received that could give rise to judicial relief. In each of the hearings referred to in these reasons, he was accorded procedural fairness. In none of the decisions referred to in these reasons is there any demonstrated error of fact or law, or any failure of either Respondent to comply with its governing legislative responsibilities.

I acted for the successful Respondent, Health Professions Review Board. The full reason are available here. The second, Provincial Court Judges’ Association v BC, concerned a judicial review of the Legislative Assembly’s decision rejecting, among other things, the salary recommendation of the independent Judicial Compensation Commission appointed to prepare recommendations in respect of the remuneration allowances and benefits for the provincial court judiciary. The BC Supreme Court found that the government’s decision failed to meet the standard of review established in Bodner to accomplish the “constitutional imperative” of depoliticizing the means by which the executive and legislative branches of government address the matter of the compensation of the judicial branch. The Court held:

I am unable to accept that the government’s decision respected that the unique position of members of the judicial branch of government entitled them to other than the usual treatment for members of the public service in terms of orderly resolution of their compensation. I am also unable to accept that the government’s response was not based in part on the erroneous representations in the Legislative Assembly that (1) the result of the government’s response to the recommendations of a JCC will often not be what the recommendation is that comes from the JCC or(2) that the government, in response to recommendations of a JCC, can deal with those recommendations by looking to compromise them.

I acted for the successful petitioner. The full reasons are available here.

bottom of page