BANKRUPTCY
Judicial review of decision of disciplinary administrative tribunal (delegate of Superintendent of Bankruptcy), granting stay of proceedings pending Federal Court decision on applications for judicial review in dockets T-2473-03 ([2005] 4 F.C.R. 615) and T-75-04 [2006] 2 F.C.R. 543—Two issues: whether delegate had authority to stay disciplinary proceeding he was conducting pending result of judicial review proceedings challenging constitutional validity of provisions of enabling legislation; if delegate had this authority, should he nevertheless have refused to stay proceeding?—Application dismissed—For standard of review, Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226, aplied and four factors examined—(1) Absence of privative clause and existence of right of appeal indicate relatively exacting standard of review—(2) Delegate’s specialized skills favour considerable deference—(3) Powers Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act gives Superintendent suggests greater deference by reviewing court—(4) Question of mixed law and fact—Considering these four factors, applicable standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter—Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Carling O’Keefe Breweries of Canada Limited, [1983] 2 F.C. 71 (C.A.) not applicable since Act, s. 14.02(2) grants much greater discretion and latitude to delegate than Trade-marks Act, s. 44 grants to Registrar—Parameters of s. 14.02(2)(c) give delegate necessary authority to say proceeding taking into account circumstances and fairness—Furthermore, if delegate can rule on constitutional questions (see [2005] 4 F.C.R. 615 (F.C.), para. 23), he must surely have power to postpone hearings (stay proceedings)—So delegate could stay proceeding in this case—Application of Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110 and RJR—MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (applicable criteria for deciding whether to grant stay of proceedings)—(1) Constitutional questions are serious questions—(2) Applicants would suffer irreparable harm since risking loss of business through cancellation or suspension of licence—(3) Balance of convenience favours respondents; public interest was considered and assessed by delegate as part of balance of convenience—Delegate did not commit any reviewable error in his application of three criteria underlying stay—Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3, s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 27, s. 2), 14.02(2) (as enacted, idem, s. 9)—Trade-marks Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13, s. 44.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Sam Lévy et Associés Inc. (T-1069-04, 2005 FC 208, beaudry J., order dated 10/2/05, 17 pp.)