The applicant made a request for personal information from the Communications Security Establishment. He claimed the response was unsatisfactory. He filed a formal complaint with the Officer of Privacy Commissioner of Canada, claiming that he had been improperly denied access to his personal information. The complaint was rejected by the Privacy Commissioner. The applicant was unsuccessful before the court on judicial review. The court recognized the sensitivity of the information being requested and concluded that, in respect of some of that information, the decision of the CSE to neither deny nor confirm its existence was reasonable.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Privacy Commissioner – National defence – Disclosure of records – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness Martinez v. Communications Security Establishment, [2018] F.C.J. No. 1190, 2018 FC 1179, Ontario Federal Court, November 23, 2018, S.E. Roussel J. The Communications Security Establishment (the “CSE”) is administered ...

The appellant’s claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits was denied after she experienced a traumatic event at her job as a correctional officer. The appellant was eventually diagnosed with PTSD, but the Workers’ Compensation Tribunal upheld the Commission’s decision that this was not new evidence that would substantially affect its original decision denying benefits. The Court of Appeal found the Tribunal made several errors that materially affected the outcome. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and an order was made to provide the appellant benefits retroactively to the date of the original claim.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Workers’ Compensation Tribunal – Benefits – Psychological injuries – Judicial review – Appeals – New evidence Perry v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2018] N.B.J. No. 291, 2018 NBCA 80, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, November 29, 2018, K.A. Quigg, B.V. Green and R.T. French JJ.A. ...

The petitioner hospital was unsuccessful on judicial review in setting aside the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to not summarily dismiss a human rights complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success under section 27(1) of the Human Rights Code. The complaint was for alleged discrimination by the hospital on the grounds of mental and physical disability in relation to the provision of services. The court found that the complaint had some prospect of success and that the Tribunal’s decision was not patently unreasonable. The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal was not in a position to second-guess the exercise of professional medical judgment by the hospital staff in the provision of services, absent discrimination.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Practice and procedure – Summary proceedings Hospital v. J.R. (Litigation guardian of), [2018] B.C.J. No. 3731, 2018 BCSC 2079, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 26, 2018, L.W. Bernard J. ...

The applicant, a prospective RCMP candidate, was successful on judicial review in setting aside a Human Rights Commission’s decision dismissing his complaint that the RCMP discriminated against him based on his medical condition. The court found the Commission failed to conduct a neutral investigation and breached its duty of fairness, and also failed to apply the correct legal test when assessing the complaint.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Test – Standard of review – Correctness – Professions – Police Boychyn v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2018] F.C.J. No. 1203, 2018 FC 1185, Ontario Federal Court, November 27, 2018, S.S. Ahmed ...

This case involves a detailed consideration of section 7(2) of the Worker’s Compensation Act, which creates a rebuttable presumption whereby an accident occurring in the course of employment is deemed to also “arise out of that same employment” in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The purpose of the section is to attenuate the difficulty in proving that an injury in fact arises out of and in the course of one’s employment. The Commission argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of this provision. The court ultimately disagreed and engaged in a fairly detailed consideration of the provision.

16. November 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Workers Compensation Board – Judicial review – Legislative compliance – Appeals – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness – Worker’s compensation – Statutory provisions – In and out of the course of employment New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission) v. St-Onge, [2018] N.B.J. No. 198, 2018 ...

Does the Human Rights Commission have to provide reasons when dismissing a complaint? When is it appropriate on judicial review for the court to permit evidence that was not before the original decision-maker? These were some of the central questions that were before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court after the applicant filed a complaint against her employer saying that she was constructively dismissed due to a failure to accommodate her disability.

16. November 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Evidence – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Human rights complaints – Disability Kelly v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2018] N.S.J. No. 336, 2018 NSSC 173, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, September 11, 2018, J.M. Arnold J. ...

The appellant, a member of the Fredericton Police Force was caught stealing while in the United States. She was never convicted, but the charges were not dismissed either. At the same time as this was unfolding, a formal complaint was initiated through her employer. The matter proceeded to arbitration where she was dismissed from her employment with the Fredericton Police Force, the arbitrator citing her breach of trust as the primary reason for the termination. The appellant sought to quash the arbitrator’s decision on judicial review for both procedural and substantive reasons.

16. November 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Arbitration Board – Professional governance and discipline – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Police – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming Campbell v. Fredericton (City) Police Force, [2018] N.B.J. No. 197, 2018 NBCA 54, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, September 6, 2018, J.C.M. Richard, ...

The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, a pro-life advocacy group, was denied advertising space on public buses by the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority for one of its campaigns aimed at demonizing women who have an abortion. It argued that the refusal constituted an unreasonable infringement on its Charter right to freedom of expression. The decision of TransLink was upheld by the chamber’s judge on judicial review, but ultimately overturned by the Court of Appeal, primarily on the basis of its failure to properly address the Charter argument. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to TransLink for reconsideration.

16. November 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Transportation Authority – Human Rights – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Judicial review – Appeals – Fresh evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Proportionality Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, [2018] B.C.J. No. 3156, 2018 BCCA 344, British Columbia Court ...

This case considers the appropriateness of advancing new arguments on judicial review, not considered by the original decision-maker, and how the court ought to address those issues. The appellant in this case advanced new Charter arguments that were first raised with the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded it would be inappropriate for it to hear these arguments for the first time without a complete factual record. The matter was remitted back to a new panel for consideration.

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Human rights complaints – Religion – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Discrimination Webber Academy Foundation v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission Director), [2018] A.J. No. 689, 2018 ABCA 207, ...