We have extensive experience representing clients in both the private and public sectors, including government ministries, Crown agencies and administrative boards and tribunals.

We have a wealth of insight into government policy making processes and the decision making processes of administrative boards and agencies. We regularly provide strategic and regulatory advice on sophisticated, multi-disciplinary matters, which involve the interaction of law, public policy, regulatory processes and scientific and technical issues.

Notable Administrative Law Cases

• Dymond (Township) v. Ontario (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing), (2003), 68 O.R. (3d) 126 (Div. Ct.) - issue of interpretation of municipal amalgamation legislation.
• McMichael v. Ontario (1998), 36 O.R. (3d) 163 (C.A.) - whether the McMichael Gallery could collect artworks not approved of by Robert McMichael.
• Re Eurig Estate (1997), 31 O.R. (3d) 777 (C.A.) - constitutional challenge to probate fees.
• British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch et al.[1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 123 D.L.R. (4th) 462 - constitutional challenge to the investigative powers of securities commissions.
• MacPump Developments Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) (1994), 20 O.R. (3d) 755; 120 D.L.R. (4th) 662; 28 Admin. L.R. (2d) 127 (C.A.) - question of interpretation of inquiry powers under municipal legislation.
• Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman et al. (1994), 20 O.R. (3d) 229; 117 D.L.R. (4th) 449 (Gen. Div.) - Attorney General injunction against picketing of abortion clinics, hospitals, doctors' offices, and doctors' homes across Ontario.
• Comité Paritaire de l'Industrie de la Chemise v. Potash, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406; 4 C.C.E.L. (2d) 214 - issue of interpretation of Charter ss. 7 and 8.
• Susan Shoe Industries v. Ricciardi (1991), 6 O.R. (3d) 144 (Div. Ct.); (1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 660 (C.A.) 3C.C.E.L. (2d) 153 (C.A.) - whether an employer must follow the appeal mechanisms under the Employment Standards Act before attempting to challenge a decision in the courts.