Case information

None.

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.

Administrative law — Appeals — Alberta Association of Architects — Complaint Review Committee — Bias — New evidence — Witnesses — Interpretation — Architects Act of Alberta, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-44 — Whether the Chair of the Review Committee had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the hearing — Whether a member of the hearing Committee was biased in that he employed a member of the project’s volunteer building committee — Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply the correct test for bias — Whether the Council’s refusal to summon the applicant’s proposed witnesses to testify on the appeal to Council was a denial of procedural fairness — Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret the relevant provision of the Act correctly — Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret the section of the Act allowing for engagement of out of province architects properly — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deferring to the finding of Committee and Council that the applicant was guilty of unprofessional conduct when the facts clearly did not warrant such a finding.

Mr. Ho, an architect in British Columbia, acknowledged that he prepared plans, drawings and specifications for a Buddhist temple in Edmonton under the terms of a contract dated March 1, 2004, between Mr. Ho and the temple. Those activities are clearly included in the practice of architecture within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Architects Act of Alberta, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-44. Mr. Ho was not registered with the Association until June 20, 2011. The membership of the Alberta architect listed as a field review architect for the project ceased to be a member in November 2005, and it was later found that he had passed away. Mr. Ho failed to complete the contract and his actions impeded the temple’s ability to engage the services of a different registered architect to complete the work after relations between Mr. Ho and the temple soured. The temple Master complained to the Association about Mr. Ho’s conduct. Mr. Ho later indicated that he would not be renewing his annual membership when it expired. The complaint was investigated by the Chair of the Complaint Review Committee, who referred the complaint to a hearing Committee. He rephrased the complaint into three distinct counts. The Committee heard the complaint on January 16, 2013, and, by operation of s. 24 of the Act, Mr. Ho’s application to de-register became effective when it was approved by Council on January 18, 2013. The Committee found that the Association had established two of the three counts of unprofessional conduct, and ordered Mr. Ho to pay $10,000 penalty for each count, plus costs. It also ordered Mr. Ho to take a course, and a summary of the case was to be published. The Council dismissed Mr. Ho’s appeal, confirmed the Committee’s findings of unprofessional conduct and the sanctions imposed, plus costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Ho’s appeal.