Poulin had brought an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination that a civil claim was barred pursuant to s. 68(1) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Board and Poulin sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal held that the Board acted within its jurisdiction. In the result, the judicial review application was dismissed.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Worker – Definition – Liability of sole director of a corporation – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Evidence Poulin v. Manitoba (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2003] M.J. No. 122, Manitoba Court of Appeal, April 23, 2003, ...

The court held that a policy requiring employees to undergo drug or alcohol testing, where the potential consequences of a positive test include the loss of employment, was considered a prima facie violation of section 7(1) of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. H-14 (the “Act”). However, where testing constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement, the section 7(1) prohibition against discrimination based on a physical or mental disability does not apply. The Court held that being drug and alcohol free is a bona fide requirement for employees of a small remote Metis Settlement with ongoing concerns about serious drug and alcohol abuse by community members.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Drug and alcohol testing – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Elizabeth Metis Settlement, [2003] A.J. No. 484, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 17, 2003, Bielby J. Elizabeth Metis Settlement (“the Settlement”) is ...

Members of the Petitioner British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (“BCTF”) joined a rally in protest of the decision of the legislature to pass the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, S.B.C. 2002 c. 1. The British Columbia Public Schools Employers Association (“BCPSEA”) brought an application before the Labour Relations Board to declare the attendance at the anticipated rally a breach of section 57 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244. The Labour Relations Board declared that a cessation of work would contravene section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Code. The Petitioners raised an argument that the definition of strike was unconstitutional. The Attorney General of BC brought a preliminary objection, submitting that the court ought to refer the constitutional question back to the Board. The court held that tribunals have the jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of their enabling statutes and remitted the matter to the Board.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Labour Relations Board – Jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions relating to enabling statute British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 785, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 8, 2003, Satanove J. On January 28, 2002, members of the BCTF left the premises of their ...

Ms. Ennis was hired as the manager of the Prince Albert Elks Club (the “Club”). She was fired approximately two weeks later after the Club learned that she was married to a convicted murderer. Ms. Ennis filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination because of marital status. The Board of Inquiry did not find discrimination based on marital status as defined in the Regulations. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Prince Albert Elks Club Inc., [2002] S.J. No. 552, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 26, 2002, Vancise, Lane and Jackson JJ.A. Ms. Ennis married Mr. Ennis in 1993 while he was serving a life sentence at a penitentiary for ...

The Applicant attended at the Joyceville Penitentiary to visit her husband. A drug sniffing dog identified her as having drugs on her person and the guards would not allow the visit. Subsequently, a “risk assessment” was completed without notice to the Applicant and her visiting privileges were suspended. Her application for review was dismissed on the grounds that the issue was moot.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Visiting rights – Judicial review applications – Compliance with legislation – Mootness – Breach of procedural fairness McGahey v. Joyceville Penitentiary, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1281, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, September 19, 2002, Gibson J. On September 30, 2000, the Applicant and her daughter went to the Joyceville Institution ...

On January 29, 2001, the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association found the Applicant guilty of unskilled practice of pharmacy and professional misconduct. The Applicant sought an order quashing the decision of the Council, arguing that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Discipline Committee resulting from an inappropriate involvement of its Registrar. The court found a reasonable apprehension of bias and quashed the decision of the Council.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Billing practices – Boards and tribunals – Bias Sawchuk v. Manitoba Pharmaceutical Assn., [2002] M.J. No. 384, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, September 25, 2002, Darichuk J. In the summer of 1998, a series of articles was published in a newspaper alleging fraudulent billing practices on the part ...

Mr. Helgesen was served with a 90-day administrative driving prohibition after refusing to provide a breath sample. Mr. Helgesen appealed to an adjudicator arguing that he had a reasonable excuse. The adjudicator disagreed and Mr. Helgesen petitioned for judicial review. The court concluded that the adjudicators decision was not patently unreasonable and the judicial review was dismissed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyser test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Not patently unreasonable Helgesen v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2238, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 3, 2002, Macaulay J. Mr. Helgesen was driving a motor ...