Supreme Court

Decision Information

Robinson v Comite Garderie Plein Soleil

Court Supreme Court
Date 1992-08-31
Other citations (1992) – 8 Admin. L.R. (2d) 304 (N.W.T. S.C.)
File numbers CV 04113
Judge(s) de Weerdt
Location Yellowknife
Cases and statutes considered Cases considered:
Gal-Cab Invt. Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board, [ 1987 ] NWTR 100
Barsoum v. Pape, [ 1988 ] N.W.T.R. 368 (S.C.)
Ringrose v. College of Physicians, etc., [ 1977 ] 1 SCR 814
Committee for Justice and Liberty v. The National Energy Board, [ 1978 ] 1 SCR 369
Qually v. Qually (1986), 4 R.F.L. (3d) 260 (Sask. C.A.)
Queen's Pate Development Ltd. v. Assessor of Area 09, Vancouver (1987), 16 B.C.L.R. (2d) 104, 22 C.P.C. (2d) 265 (C.A.)
Dusseault & Borgeat, Administrative Law, vol. 4, page 297 (footnote 878)
Ghirardosi v. Min. of Highways (B.C.), [1966] S.C.R. 367, 55 W.W.R. 750, 56 D.L.R. (2d) 469
Szilard v. Szasz (195) S.C.R. 3, (1955) 1 D.L.R. 370
Budge v. Workers' Compensation Board, [1987] 6 W.W.R. 217, 42 D.L.R. (4th) 649 (Q.B.)
R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 (Div. Ct.)
Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1948] A.C. 87 (H.L.)

Statutes considered:
Planning Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-7, s. 51
Decision information:

Abstract: Application for leave to appeal a decision of the Development Appeal Board confirming a decision of the city to issue a development permit to the Comite Garderie Plein Solei. Issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction to render the decision. Concern about whether there was a reasonable apprehension of Bias. The Board Member had previously declared a conflict of interest but did not do so at the hearing of the application. The test applied to determine the bias issue was whether the facts of the case give rise to a reasonable apprehension which reasonably wellinformed persons could properly have of a biased appraisal and judgment of the issues to be determined.
Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Subjects: Administrative law
Municipal law
Keywords: Apprehension of bias - Development Appeal Board
Jurisdiction

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.