A former employee of British Columbia Hydro (“Lee”), successfully applied for a judicial review of the decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) which declined to refer his complaint for a hearing before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Investigative bodies – Evidenciary issues Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2200, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 22, 2003, Ross J. Lee had been employed as an engineer with BC ...

The Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre (“Ingamo”) appealed from a decision of the Fair Practices Officer in which Bergeron’s complaint of discrimination was allowed and damages for the lost wages and humiliation were awarded. The court allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Fair Practices Officer.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Fair Practices Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre v. Bergeron, [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 51, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, July 30, 2003, Vertes J. Bergeron, ...

St. Anthony Seafoods Limited Partnership (“St. Anthony”) applied for an Order that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture issue it a licence to process snow crab. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture denied making any prior commitment to issue a licence for the processing of snow crab and the court agreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Fisheries – Permits and licences – Compliance with legislation – Powers under legislation – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Legitimate expectations – Promissory estoppel St. Anthony Seafoods Limited Partnership v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture), [2003] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, July 31, 2003, ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...

A homeowner (“Covey”) who had leased his home under a one year lease to tenants who later terminated their tenancy on the advice of their physician, applied for judicial review of two decisions of an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406. In the first decision, the arbitrator had ruled in favour of the tenants and, in the second one, the arbitrator reviewed and rejected fresh evidence that Covey brought forward in support of his position. The court dismissed Covey’s application on the basis that the decision of the arbitrator and his review of that decision were not patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Termination – Evidence – Damages – Arbitration and award – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Covey v. St. Denis, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1795, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2003, Melnick J. Covey had rented his house to Tyrone and Rosemarie St. Denis ...

An inmate at Springhill Penitentiary, with a 35-year history of smoking marijuana prior to his incarceration (“Patriquen”), brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction requiring Health Canada to provide him with marijuana in accordance with his recently granted exemption from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, an exemption which allowed him to use cannabis to treat medical conditions. The Federal Court held that Patriquen failed to provide evidence illustrating that the injunction should be granted.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Use of narcotics – Medicinal use of marijuana – Judicial review – Evidence – Remedies – Injunctions – Test Patriquen v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1186, Federal Court, July 29, 2003, Blais J. Patriquen was incarcerated in September of 2002 after being charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose ...

The Petitioner sought a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator who, in a “letter decision”, concluded that the Petitioner had failed to comply with the demand under section 254 of the Criminal Code to supply a breath sample and imposed a prohibition of driving for 90 days. The test on judicial review was whether the decision was patently unreasonable. The court held that there was no evidence that the officer read the written demand to the accused and therefore the adjudicator’s decision to impose a 90-day prohibition was patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyzer test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Evidence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hewitt v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1877, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 9, 2003, Williamson J. The Petitioner sought a judicial review of ...

The Appellant appealed the reference hearing judge’s decision to refuse to grant a firearms licence. In December of 1997, the Appellant was issued a Firearms Acquisition Certificate valid to December 2002. As a result of an allegation of historical sexual assault, the Chief Firearms Officer examined the Appellant’s criminal record, which included convictions for assaults 13 and 18 years earlier. His licence to possess firearms was revoked on the grounds that he had “demonstrated a history of behaviour that includes violence”. The Appellant applied for a reference before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. The decision was upheld and he appealed that decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who held that the Appellant had not satisfied the court that cancelling the revocation was not justified.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Firearms registration – Firearms – Licences – Revocation – Evidence – Prior criminal charges – Public safety – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Retrospective operation R. v. D.L.B., [2003] O.J. No. 2471, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 12, 2003, Durno J. 45-year-old D.B. had used firearms for a long time. In 1992, ...

Mrs. Lewis appealed the Director of the Department of Labour’s decision cancelling an officer’s decision that the School Board had wrongfully discriminated against the appellant. In 1996, Mrs. Lewis suspected that the cause of her health problems arose from the modular classroom to which she had recently been assigned and complained to the Board of Education. The Board declared that the classroom was safe. Mrs. Lewis filed a complaint with the Occupational Health and Safety Division of the Department of Labour, claiming that the Board had discriminated against her by failing to find her a new classroom. The tribunal held that the Board had failed to provide good and sufficient reasons for its failure to provide an alternative classroom. The Board appealed the decision and was successful on appeal. Mrs. Lewis appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, who held that the adjudicator committed no error in concluding that there was no discriminatory action by the Board against Mrs. Lewis. Mrs. Lewis’ appeal was dismissed.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Working conditions – Schools – Teachers – Discrimination Lewis v. Regional School Division No. 4, [2003] S.J. No. 526, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, July 31, 2003, Matheson J. After being assigned to the modular classroom in 1996, Mrs. Lewis began to experience persistent health problems. Her family doctor ...

The Provincial Court Judges’ Association of New Brunswick (the “Association”) appealed the lower court’s decision that the Government of New Brunswick had justified its decision to reject the recommendations of a judicial remuneration commission on salary increases, according to a standard of simple rationality. On appeal, it was upheld that the recommendations of a judicial remuneration commission were not binding on government; however, if a government chose to reject them, it had to justify its decision on a standard of simple rationality. Although the Government’s reasons for rejecting the salary recommendation were expressed in recitals, thus exacerbating the difficulty of applying any review standard, it was held that with respect to the parity argument (parity with judges of the Court of Queen’s bench) and attracting qualified applicants, the Government’s decision to reject the Commissioner’s salary recommendation met the simple rationality test.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Remuneration of judges – Judicial Remuneration Commission – Recommendations – Government rejection – Simple rationality standard Provincial Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2003] N.B.J. No. 321, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, August 20, 2003, Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson JJ.A. The government of New Brunswick appointed ...