Summary

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure – Administrative law – Administrative boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Disciplinary complaints – Declaratory actions – Powers of administrative tribunals to dispose of constitutional issues – Applicants challenging constitutionality of art. 5.08 of the Code of ethics – Whether Okwuobi created henceforth exclusive recourse precluding action based on Oakes but making mandatory disciplinary process, appeal before Professions Tribunal and potential exercise of Superior Court’s superintending power, with standard of review being that of reasonableness as suggested in Doré, thus depriving applicants of more favourable and more immediate recourse, as recognized in Khela – Whether constitutional defence against disciplinary complaint precludes remedy before Superior Court since Martin provides that administrative tribunals have concomitant jurisdiction to decide questions of law.

The syndic of the Ordre des audioprothésistes du Québec filed a disciplinary complaint against the applicant, accusing him of illegally advertising in Lobe Magazine and on the Lobe website. The applicant sent the Attorney General of Quebec (“AGQ”) a first notice under art. 95 C.C.P. to invalidate art. 5.08 of the Code of ethics of hearing-aid acousticians given that this provision was contrary to the Canadian Charter. He subsequently sent a new amended notice to the AGQ under art. 94 C.C.P., and submitted it to the disciplinary council of the Ordre des audioprothésistes du Québec. The third party, Lobe Réseau Inc., intervened in the case pending before the disciplinary council of the Ordre des audioprothésistes du Québec by also submitting a notice to the AGQ under art. 95 C.C.P. and a motion to declare invalid art. 5.08 of the Code of ethics of hearing-aid acousticians. Before the disciplinary council, the applicant filed a motion for a stay of proceedings, which was dismissed. The hearing on the merit of the disciplinary complaint was to be held on April 23, 24 and 25, 2014, but the applicant turned to the Superior Court to have the provision declared invalid on the same constitutional grounds.

Lower Court Rulings