skip to main content
Print Icon LinkedIn Icon Twitter Icon RSS Feed Icon Contact Icon

Litigation Expertise

Practice Areas > Public and Administrative Law

Public and Administrative Law

The firm has a diverse public and administrative law practice, which includes acting before and on behalf of provincial and federal administrative tribunals in judicial review proceedings, administrative appeals, and constitutional challenges.

Lawyers in our public and administrative law group have appeared before all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, and have argued some of Canada’s leading public and administrative law cases. Our lawyers have also written extensively on a vast array of public and administrative law issues and are frequently asked to speak on the latest developments in their respective areas of expertise. 

  • Lawyers

    Chris Paliare

    e: chris.paliare@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4318

    Ian Roland

    e: ian.roland@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4319

    Ken Rosenberg

    e: ken.rosenberg@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4304

    Linda Rothstein

    e: linda.rothstein@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4327

    Richard Stephenson

    e: richard.stephenson@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4325

    Nick Coleman

    e: nick.coleman@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4315

    Donald Eady

    e: donald.eady@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4321

    Lily Harmer

    e: lily.harmer@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4326

    John Monger

    e: john.monger@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4317

    Andrew Lokan

    e: andrew.lokan@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4324

    Andrew Lewis

    e: andrew.lewis@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4310

    Megan Shortreed

    e: megan.shortreed@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4308

    Karen Jones

    e: karen.jones@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4339

    Robert Centa

    e: robert.centa@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4314

    Caroline (Nini) Jones

    e: nini.jones@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7433

    Emily Lawrence

    e: emily.lawrence@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7475

    Tina Lie

    e: tina.lie@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.4332

    Jodi Martin

    e: jodi.martin@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7482

    Jean-Claude Killey

    e: jean-claude.killey@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7473

    Michael Fenrick

    e: michael.fenrick@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7481

    Alysha Shore

    e: alysha.shore@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7437

    Jessica Latimer

    e: jessica.latimer@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7472

    Ren Bucholz

    e: ren.bucholz@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.6303

    Denise Cooney

    e: denise.cooney@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7422

    Danielle Glatt

    e: danielle.glatt@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7440

    Lauren Pearce

    e: lauren.pearce@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.6308

    Dan Rosenbluth

    e: daniel.rosenbluth@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.6307

    Emily Home

    e: emily.home@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.6310

    Charlotté Calon

    e: charlotte.calon@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7484

    Hailey Bruckner

    e: hailey.bruckner@paliareroland.com
    p: 416.646.7486

  • Representative Work
    • Andrew Lokan and Lorne Waldman of Waldman and Associates successfully represented Kazakh businessman Rustem Tursunbayev in securing the Federal Court’s largest-ever costs award in an immigration matter, after the Federal Court found that the Attorney General had unreasonably opposed Mr. Tursunbayev’s request for a stay of deportation proceedings against him, based on his claim that Canadian officials had committed an abuse of process in seeking his deportation to a country that uses torture.

      More details can be found here: https://bit.ly/2ZW6dAy

       

       

    • Spence v. University of Toronto, 2019 ONSC 1085 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hxmjw>,

      Rob Centa and Emily home successfully represented the University of Toronto in an application for judicial review brought by a graduate of the University. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and held that there was no violation of procedural fairness and the penalty of the revocation of his doctoral degree for plagiarism was reasonable.


    • Christopher Spence v. University of Toronto 2019 ONSC 1085 (CanLII):

      Rob Centa and Emily Home successfully represented the University of Toronto in an application for judicial review of a complex academic discipline decision. The court held that there was no violation of procedural fairness. See: http://canlii.ca/t/hxmjw


    • Quadrangle Group LLC, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2019 ONSC 1478 (CanLII).

      Rob Centa successfully represented Obelysk Media Inc. and established that the Canada’s discovery representative was demonstrably unsatisfactory and must be replaced. See: http://canlii.ca/t/hxzgg 


    • Rabi v. University of Toronto 2019 HRTO 358 (CanLII)

      Rob Centa obtained an order from the Tribunal deferring consideration of the application pending the outcome of a parallel court application. See: http://canlii.ca/t/hxt5x



    • Zeng v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto – Robert Centa – 2018 CarswellOnt 14162 (Div. Ct.) – Public Law/Judicial Review - Fact member of committee found in favour of applicant in past did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed from perspective of reasonable person cognizant of all relevant facts, and nothing in conduct of hearing met test for reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant did not ask member to recuse herself and was barred from raising issue of reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant had not shown denial of procedural fairness, as he was represented at hearing and received legal advice throughout — Committee was alive to existence of applicant's disability issues and gave consideration to whether they should impact result — There was no error of fact or law that rendered committee's decision unreasonable.

    • Ombudsman of Ontario v. Hamilton (City) – Robert Centa and Denise Cooney 2018 CarswellOnt 8627 (ONCA)  - Public Law/Judicial review Respondent city was subject of appellant provincial ombudsman's report — Ombudsman challenged city boards' private deliberations and issuing of reasons in private, after holding public hearings — Ombudsman issued complaint, and prepared report — City applied for judicial review of report, seeking declaratory relief — Application was granted in part — Reviewing court found that city boards were not local boards under law, and were outside ombudsman's jurisdiction — Reviewing court did not grant broader declaratory relief, as to ombudsman's jurisdiction — Ombudsman claimed reviewing court was in error, on issue of what was local board — City claimed that even if boards were considered local, deliberations were exempt from being made public — Ombudsman appealed from reviewing court's judgment — City cross-appealed — Appeal dismissed; no judgment made as to cross-appeal — City boards did not provide essential services, as to day-to-day operation of city — As investigative and adjudicative bodies, city boards' function was different than those identified as local boards — Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction to investigate alleged non-compliance.

    • Rob Centa and Denise Cooney represented the Ombudsman of Ontario before the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal on an application regarding the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate the deliberations of the City of Hamilton’s committees and local boards.
    • Rob Centa and Michael Fenrick represented a major federal political party on an application for judicial review regarding whether or not the party’s decisions rejecting the applicant’s candidacy for the leadership of the party  are properly the subject of judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.  Graff v New Democratic Party, 2017 ONSC 3578 (CanLII), 
       http://canlii.ca/t/h46sv
    • Don Eady, Nini Jones, Jodi Martin, Emily Home and Glynnis Hawe represented a group of intervenors who challenged the right of the Provincial Government to change the City of Toronto election ward boundaries in the midst of an election campaign.  They were successful at the first instance.  See http://canlii.ca/t/httrh. That decision was stayed by the Court of Appeal.  See  http://canlii.ca/t/hv54t.  The appeal before the Court of Appeal is ongoing and will be heard by a 5 member panel of the Court of Appeal on June 10 and 11, 2019.  Paliare Roland represented the intervenors on a pro bono basis.

    • Megan Shortreed and Michael Fenrick acted for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in a case that determined that the Board has standing to bring a motion to quash an appeal from its own decision, and that no appeal lies from an interlocutory decision of the Board:  Sazant v. R.M. and C.I.C.B., 2010 ONSC 4273.

    • At the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Stephenson, Danny Kastner and Jodi Martin successfully represented the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), acting in support of the Consumers Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization in Bell Canada v. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, 2009 SCC 40. The court agreed with PIAC's position that telecommunications service providers had overcharged telephone customers in the amount of approximately $300 million. The court ordered the amount rebated to customers.
    • Chris Paliare and Andrew Lokan (together with Ecojustice) in Friends of the Earth v. Canada (Governor in Council), 2008 FC 1183 represented Friends of the Earth in a judicial review application in the Federal Court to compel the federal government to comply with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, requiring the government to develop and implement a plan to achieve compliance with Canada's obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

    • Linda Rothstein and Megan Shortreed acted for the College of Nurses on a case which resolved important issues with respect to the interpretation of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (“PHIPA”) – in particular whether occupational health records of an employee who is a member of the College may be disclosed to the College and used in the course of a discipline investigation when the employee has not given consent to the disclosure: Hooper v. College of Nurses of Ontario 2006 CanLII 22656 (Ont. Div. Ct.).

Exceptional Advocates.

155 WELLINGTON ST WEST, 35th FLOOR TORONTO ON M5V 3H1

© 2017 Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein | Privacy PolicyDisclaimer |  Law Firm Marketing | Cubicle Fugitive