The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss the Applicant’s allegations of discrimination, but allowed her application with respect to an allegation of retaliation

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Employment law – Conditions of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Limitations of actions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Dubois v. Canada (Attorney ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to refer a complaint to a hearing panel of the Commission. The reviewing judge had correctly found that the chief commissioner’s decision was reasonable.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Investigations – Evidence – Role of investigator – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong, [2005] A.J. No. 1051, Alberta Court of ...

The Court dismissed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s appeal of a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the Appeals Commission. The privative clause and the statutory appeal provision limited the right of appeal from a decision by the Appeals Commission to pure questions of law. The reviewing judge did not err in finding that the Appeals Commission decision could rely on new medical evidence since strict rules of evidence did not apply to a hearing.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Procedural fairness – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Hearings – Rules of evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Appeals Commission, [2005] A.J. No. ...

The Court allowed an appeal by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board and reinstated a decision of the Respondent’s Appeal Tribunal which had found the Respondent, Stetler, guilty of engaging in the unlawful sale of tobacco outside the auspices of the Board’s quota system. The reviewing judge had erred in failing to properly determine the appropriate standard of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decision and by applying a standard of correctness rather than reasonableness.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Marketing Boards – Penalties – Judicial review – Evidence – Witnesses – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Stetler v. Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, [2005] O.J. No. 2817, Ontario Court of Appeal, July 8, 2005, S. Borins, K.N. Feldman and E.A. ...

The Court ordered a re-hearing by the Police Review Board of a complaint against a police officer on the grounds that the Board had permitted inappropriate cross-examination of the Complainant, had failed to give adequate reasons, and had failed to assist the unrepresented Complainant

Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Unrepresented complainant – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Kelly v. Nova Scotia (Police Commission), [2005] N.S.J. No. 284, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, June 2, 2005, F.C. Edwards ...

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s appeal of a reviewing judge’s decision to uphold a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission regarding a Claimant’s entitlement to benefits. The WCB had appealed on the basis that the reviewing judge had failed to apply the correct standard of review.

Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Reasonableness simpliciter Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2005] A.J. No. 825, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 8, 2005, Hunt, Berger, Costigan JJ.A. ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Association’s Appeals Committee which had overturned the Appellant’s acquittal on charges of professional misconduct and substituted a verdict of guilty on some charges. The Court held that the Appeals Committee had misstated and misapplied the reasonableness standard in reviewing the Conduct Committee’s decision.

Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Nelson v. Alberta Assn. of Registered Nurses, [2005] A.J. No. 821, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 29, 2005, Hunt, Berger and Costigan JJ.A. The Appellant was a Registered Nurse who, after a ten-day hearing, was acquitted by ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Institute’s Appeal Tribunal which had decided to refer two allegations of unprofessional conduct to the Discipline Tribunal Roster Chair and not to allow the Appellant to make representations to the Appeal Tribunal. The Court held that, under the Act, it was premature for the Court to hear an appeal at this stage of the proceedings.

Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Natural justice – Appeal process – Hearings – Conduct of hearings Partington v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, [2005] A.J. No. 787, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 4, 2005, Russell and Picard JJ.A. and Ouellette J. The Appellant was a Chartered Accountant ...

The Court allowed the Applicants’ application for judicial review and set aside a report by the Public Service Integrity Officer (“PSIO”) concerning allegations by the Applicants of wrongdoing at Health Canada. The Court found that the PSIO had failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with its mandate, by failing to address the concerns of the Applicants, and thereby making an error in law.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Integrity Officer – Investigations – Jurisdiction – Public interest – Judicial review – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 712, Federal Court, April 29, 2005, O’Keefe J. The four Applicants were employees of the ...