The University of British Columbia Faculty Association (the “Association”) brought a grievance on behalf of a faculty member after the President of the University of British Columbia (“UBC”) decided not to recommend the member for promotion. The President gave the small number of publications in peer-reviewed journals as the justification for the negative decision. The matter went to arbitration, where the President’s decision was found to be unreasonable. The arbitrator held that the President failed to consider the quality of the faculty member’s innovative professional work and how his work was regarded by his peers. Under the collective agreement (Article 13.07(c)) between Association and UBC, when such a decision is found to be unreasonable, the Board shall “reverse” the decision. The arbitrator interpreted the word “reverse” to mean “revoke” or “annul”, and declined to remit the matter back to the President for reconsideration. The arbitrator substituted a decision to recommend the faculty member for promotion for the President’s decision.

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Universities – Evaluation of professors – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Interpretation of legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Correctness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression University of British Columbia v. University of British Columbia Faculty ...

An employee of the federal public service (“Comstock”) was unsuccessful in her application for a judicial review of two decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) in which the Commission had rejected her complaint regarding discrimination based on religion on the grounds that the complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission because she had failed to link a prohibited ground of discrimination to the requirement that she pay dues to her union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”)

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Religion – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression Comstock ...

A respiratory therapist (“Chaudhary”) successfully petitioned for a Declaration that the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists (“the Society”) had no jurisdiction to proceed with a disciplinary action against him given that he was a former member of the Society

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Respiratory Therapists – Rules and by-laws – Retrospective operation – Disciplinary proceedings – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Former member – Judicial review Chaudhary v. Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists, [2007] B.C.J. No. 692, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 4, 2007, Garson J. Chaudhary is a respiratory ...

The Sunshine Coast Conservation Association (“SCCA”) complained to the Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals (“ABCFP”) about the conduct of a registered professional forester (“RPF”). The ABCFP Registrar rejected the complaint on the basis that even if the allegations were proven, they did not involve a breach of the Foresters Act or the applicable bylaws or resolutions of the ABCFP.

24. April 2007 0
Administrative law – Forest professionals – Disciplinary proceedings – Code of ethics – Natural resources – Environmental issues – Forest practices – Wildlife habitat – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Correctness Sunshine Coast Conservation Association v. Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals, [2007] B.C.J. No. 281, ...

The father of a student (“Martin”) applied unsuccessfully for Judicial Review of a decision by the School Board that had banned him from the school premises

24. April 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – School boards – Powers and duties – Parental rights – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Martin v. Conseil des Ecoles Catholiques de Langue Francaise du Centre-Est, [2006] O.J. No. 5349, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, January 16, 2006, P.F. ...

A forestry company (“International”) was unsuccessful on an application for judicial review from a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) that a voluntary severance agreement (“Agreement”) ratified by the forestry workers union discriminated against non-active employees because active employees were offered severance pay under the Agreement, whereas non-active employees were not

24. April 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability –  Employment law – Severance pay – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness International Forest Products Ltd. v. Sandhu, [2007] B.C.J. No. 289, British Columbia Supreme Court, February ...

After an inspection found that funeral contracts offered by Strong did not contain a detailed listing of the goods and services to be provided, and following on a complaint to the Board that Strong and his assistant were personally signing cremation authorizations forms rather than having a personal representative of the deceased do so, Strong’s licence was suspended by the Alberta Funeral Services Regulatory Board (the “Board”). Strong appealed, and the Appeal Board substituted a six-month license suspension and a reprimand. The Board appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench which dismissed the appeal.

23. January 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Funeral Services – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Test – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Alberta (Funeral Services Regulatory Board) v. Strong, [2006] A.J. No 558, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 5, 2006, Ross J. The first question ...

An application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Commission declining to grant summary dismissal of a complaint regarding publications about a First Nations home for adolescent males alleged to be discriminatory on the basis of race and other factors was dismissed

23. January 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Aboriginal issues – Jurisdiction – Parties – Standing – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Carson v. Knucwentwecw Society, [2006] B.C.J. No 3102, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 1, 2006, Ehrcke J. A ...

An employer (“Nabors”) was unsuccessful in appealing a Queen’s Bench decision dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) Appeals Commission enabling a worker’s spouse to receive survivor benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”)

23. January 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – In and out of the course of employment – Judicial review – Appeals – Parties – Standing – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Patent unreasonableness Nabors Canada LP v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2006] A.J. No. 1507, ...