A worker (“Jones”) successfully sought re-hearing of his petition for judicial review of a Workers’ Compensation Board (the “Board”) decision which had denied him a loss of earnings pension. Jones alleged that the reviewing judge wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing a remedy in the nature of certiorari and that the decision was wrong on its merits

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Loss of earnings pension – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Certiorari Jones v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2556, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 7, 2003, Esson, Donald and Smith JJ.A. Jones initially sought compensation for a work-related injury to his lower back ...

Ultimate Shiatsu’s petition seeking to quash the City of Coquitlam’s decision to refuse it a business licence was dismissed. The City’s petition seeking a declaration that Ultimate Shiatsu was in breach of the City’s Trades Licensing Bylaw No. 49, 1972, as amended, was allowed.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Compliance with legislation – Renewal of business licence – Illegal activities – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Municipal councils – Hearsay evidence – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Coquitlam (City) v. 517011 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. Ultimate Shiatsu), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2682, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

The appeal by the B.C. Housing Commission (the “Commission”) of a decision of the Supreme Court reversing an arbitrator’s decision allowing the termination of Schubach’s tenancy was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that a landlord of a complex of residential buildings was not entitled to terminate the tenancy of a tenant in one of the buildings because of acts committed in another of the buildings by a person that the tenant “permitted in or on the residential property or residential premises”.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination – Conduct of tenant – Residential premises – Definition – Residential property – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Housing Commission – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Schubach v. British Columbia (Housing Management Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2664, British Columbia Court ...

The appeal by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) from a preliminary decision of the Board of Inquiry (the “Board”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, applying a standard of review of correctness, held that the Board did not err in determining that the trial judge, in a parallel civil action for wrongful dismissal commenced by the complainant, had jurisdiction to deal with allegations of discrimination.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Employment law – Wrongful dismissal – Parallel action – Jurisdiction of court to hear human rights complaint – Estoppel and res judicata – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Kaiser v. Dural, a division of Multibond Inc., [2003] N.S.J. No. 418, Nova Scotia Court ...

The appeal of the College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (the “College”) from the decision of the Health Disciplines Board (the “Board”) reversing a decision of the College Conduct and Competency Committee (the “Committee”) regarding the conduct of a member (“Zieniewicz”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the Committee failed to properly consider all evidence at the hearing of Zieniewicz and that the Board properly applied the standard of review in reversing the Committee’s decision.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Hearing Aid Practitioners – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Supervision of trainee – Delegated supervision – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (Council of) v. Zieniewicz, [2003] A.J. ...

The Respondent Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (the “Ministry”) terminated the funding and directed another agency to take over the programs of the Applicant, St. Catharines Association for Community Living (“SCACL”), a non-profit charitable organization providing services to disabled persons. SCACL’s application for judicial review of this decision was allowed, and the Ministry’s decision to terminate the funding, seize the property, and authorize a third party to operate the agency was quashed as illegal. The standard of review was that the decision was patently unreasonable. Although the Minister was entitled to terminate a contractual relationship where there has been a fundamental breach, there was no evidence of an inability by SCACL to protect its clients, there was no evidence of any weighing of considerations pertinent to the objects of the administration. The decision was therefore patently unreasonable.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Charitable organizations – Governance and funding – Powers of government – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Byl (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3436, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ...

The Appellant Imperial Oil was issued a characterization order by the Respondent Minister of the Environment to undertake a site study, including decontamination measures. Imperial Oil declined to do the study, arguing breach of the rules of procedural fairness since the Minister was in a conflict of interest as he himself was being sued for damages by the present owners of the land. The appeal was dismissed. There was no conflict of interest which warranted judicial intervention and the Minister acted within the framework provided by the applicable law and in accordance with the law.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Environmental issues – Contaminated sites – Remediation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Impartiality – Conflict of interest – Personal interests – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Fairness Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment), [2003] S.C.J. No. 59, Supreme Court of Canada, October 30, 2003, McLachlin C.J. ...

The Appellant medical doctor (“Markman”) was charged with four allegations of professional misconduct, along with an allegation of incompetence

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial intervention – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Sentencing – Public interest – Suspensions Markman v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3855, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 1, 2003, McRae, Gravely and Jennings JJ. ...

A group of petitioner residents applied to quash two rezoning bylaws adopted by the council of the District of West Vancouver. The application alleged that West Vancouver city council had breached procedural fairness by receiving a report from the Director of Planning regarding the rezoning issue following the close of a public hearing. The report was not made available to the public prior to the council adopting the bylaws, which had the effect of allowing three lots that were formerly used for single family dwellings to be redeveloped for 10 residential townhouses.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Change of by-laws – Appeals – Judicial review – Public hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure Hubbard v. West Vancouver (District), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2546, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 28, 2003, Stromberg-Stein J. The court held that there was a breach of procedural fairness ...

An employee of Canpar Industries suffered an off-work injury and received long-term disability benefits paid by a plan provided by the employer in accordance with a collective agreement. The employer ultimately dismissed the employee, and the employee grieved his dismissal, saying that it was a violation of the collective agreement and essentially a matter of discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code. The employer objected to the jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator to hear that grievance, and the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the employer’s objection that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of accommodation with respect to disability and the Human Rights Code. Canpar Industries appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that where a collective agreement is silent regarding the application of human rights principles and the essence of the grievor’s case is that he has been discriminated against by reason of disability, an arbitrator acting under the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 244 may take jurisdiction over the grievance.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaints – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Canpar Industries v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2577, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November ...