The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Appeals Commission of the WCB (the “Appeals Commission”) made no reviewable error in concluding that the Respondent was an insured worker acting in the course of his employment when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Applicant who was similarly subject to the operation of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15 (the “Act”). In the result, the Applicant was barred by operation of s. 23(1) of the Act from pursuing a civil action commenced against the Respondent for losses occasioned in the accident.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Statutory provisions – Worker – Definition – Immunity from civil actions – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions Barker v. Sowa, [2003] A.J. No. 1276, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 16, 2003, Bielby J. The Applicant applied for judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Commission dated August 7, ...

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 His licence to possess firearms was revoked on the grounds that he had “demonstrated a history of behaviour that includes violence”.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 ...

Bell brought a motion before a panel of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which had been convened to hear complaints filed against Bell by female employees. Bell alleged that the Tribunal’s independence and impartiality were compromised by two powers: first, the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to issue guidelines that are binding on the Tribunal concerning “a class of cases”, and second, the power of the Tribunal Chairperson to extend Tribunal members’ terms in ongoing inquiries.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights Tribunal – Impartiality – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Reasonable apprehension of bias Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Assn., [2003] S.C.J. No. 36, Supreme Court of Canada, June 26, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel ...

A Registrar of the Chiropractors Association was charged with breaching the Chiropractic Act, R.S.M. 1980, c. 100 (“the Act”). An Inquiry Committee dismissed the charges and the Association sought judicial review. A Queen’s Bench judge concluded that the Inquiry Committee was bound as a matter of law by the Regulation to find Dr. Alevizos guilty of professional misconduct and the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that absent express statutory provision, the final decision of a committee of a professional association properly empowered to make such a decision is not reviewable by the court on an application by the Association or its governing body. The appeal was therefore allowed.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Governance of professional association – Jurisdiction – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Right of appeal of professional association Manitoba Chiropractors Assn. v. Alevizos, [2003] M.J. No. 206, Manitoba Court of Appeal, June 9, 2003, Twaddle, Monnin and Freedman JJ.A. The ...

An aviation company operating tourist flights (“Delco”) was charged with (i) landing or taking off an aircraft in a built-up area of a city or town without authorization, and (ii) the use of Class F Special Use Restricted Airspace. The Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal held that the two sets of charges were founded upon the same acts and that, due to the legal nexus between the counts, Delco had been placed in a position of double jeopardy. The Appeal Panel stayed two of the charges. The Ministry appealed to the Federal Court who held that a legal double jeopardy only exists if there are no additional and distinguishing elements between two charges. Although arising from the same transaction, the Act created separate and distinct offences as a “built up area” is not necessarily “Class F Airspace” and vice versa. The decision of the Appeal Panel was quashed and the decision of the Tribunal member was reinstated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civil Aviation Tribunal – Penalties – Double jeopardy – Kienapple rule – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Minister of Transport) v. Delco Aviation Ltd., [2002] F.C.J. No. 938, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 12, 2003, Blanchard ...

A physician holding a “Border Area License” allowing him to work in both the United States and Canada was suspended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick for allegedly prescribing to patients that were not attended by him. Rather than replying directly to the College, the physician sought a judicial review of the College’s decision to suspend. In reviewing the College decision, the court concluded that in urgent circumstances the College has the jurisdiction to effect an immediate suspension of a physician’s license. The court held that the College should be given a great deal of deference in determining which circumstances constitute “an urgent matter requiring immediate action” and that their decision to suspend was reasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Jurisdiction – Fairness – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Loiselle v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2003] N.B.J. No. 111, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 12, 2003, Garnett J. Loiselle ...

The Respondent was an employee of the Federal Government who suffered severe and long-standing respiratory problems. After a number of long term absences, the Respondent was dismissed on grounds that she was incapable of performing the duties of her office. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission investigated the matter and dismissed the Respondent’s complaint on the grounds that discrimination had not been shown. The Respondent obtained a copy of the Commission’s investigation report and appealed the Commission’s decision to the Federal Court (Trial Division). The applications judge set aside the Commission’s decision to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the investigator had failed to include a great deal of information that he had obtained from the Ministry and consequently the Respondent did not have an opportunity to respond to the information. The Ministry appealed the Trial Division’s decision, arguing that the Commission’s decision-making process did not violate the Respondent’s right to procedural fairness. In allowing the appeal, the court noted that there was no basis for the notion that an investigator has a duty to disclose all information uncovered in the course of investigation to a complainant. Upon reviewing the investigation report, the court concluded that it was reasonable and adequate and that the Commission was entitled to some deference in their decision to dismiss a complaint.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigative bodies – Duty to disclose evidence – Fairness – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Patent unreasonableness Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), [2003] F.C.J. No. 439, Federal ...