An employee of Canpar Industries suffered an off-work injury and received long-term disability benefits paid by a plan provided by the employer in accordance with a collective agreement. The employer ultimately dismissed the employee, and the employee grieved his dismissal, saying that it was a violation of the collective agreement and essentially a matter of discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code. The employer objected to the jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator to hear that grievance, and the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the employer’s objection that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of accommodation with respect to disability and the Human Rights Code. Canpar Industries appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that where a collective agreement is silent regarding the application of human rights principles and the essence of the grievor’s case is that he has been discriminated against by reason of disability, an arbitrator acting under the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 244 may take jurisdiction over the grievance.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaints – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Canpar Industries v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2577, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November ...

The Applicant, North American Construction Group Inc., sought to nullify the appointment of a Human Rights Panel to consider the complaint of Glenn Todd Davis (“Davis”) who filed a complaint against North American Construction Group Inc. after a drug test taken as a condition of employment uncovered his history of marijuana use. Davis claimed that the marijuana use was for medicinal purposes only; however, he was held to have lied to the testing lab and to representatives of North American Construction Group Inc. and so he forfeited the right to avail himself of any personal remedy.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Drug and alcohol testing – Occupational requirement – Employment law – Condition of employment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter North American Construction Group Inc. v. Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, [2003] A.J. No. 1198, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, September 5, 2003, ...

An application by the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“CLO”), for judicial review of an Order and a reconsideration decision issued by an adjudicator of the Respondent Information and Privacy Commissioner, to the effect that the senior adjudicator, David Goodis, be precluded from participating in the judicial review of the Order and subsequent reconsideration decision issued by him regarding a request by Jane Doe, a former client of CLO, for the file created while she was a child client of CLO and where CLO acted as her litigation guardian in two motor vehicle accident cases. The motion was dismissed and the Court considered and dismissed the judicial review application itself.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Privacy commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Statutory interpretation – Adjudication – Crown counsel – Definition – Crown litigation privilege – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] O.J. No. ...

The holder of a number of placer mining leases (“Klippert”) appealed a chambers judge’s finding that the Gold Commissioner had jurisdiction to amend his leases for the various areas of land. The chambers judge had found that the Gold Commissioner had jurisdiction under the Mineral Tenure Act to adjust the area of the leases granted, reducing the lease area, but that he had done so without adhering to the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and declared the revisionary provisos to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Gold Commissioner.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Natural resources – Mining leases – Gold Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Powers under legislation – Procedural fairness – Natural justice Klippert v. British Columbia (Gold Commissioner), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2186, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 23, 2003, Newbury, Huddard and Saunders JJ.A. Klippert had acquired various leases of land ...

A former school teacher (“Lurette”) who had been terminated from his employment after an investigation into a complaint alleging that he had engaged in sexual conduct with a student successfully applied for judicial review to quash the Board of Adjudication’s decision upholding the Province of New Brunswick’s decision to have him dismissed. Lurette alleged that the role of the Chair of the Board of Adjudication (“Poirier”) as an employee of the Service New Brunswick subsequent to the hearing but prior to the Board of Adjudication’s decision being rendered, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Adjudication – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test – Procedural fairness – Natural justice Lurette v. New Brunswick (Minister of Education), [2003] N.B.J. No. 353, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, September 19, 2003, Young J. The court reviewed the principles of fundamental justice as including ...

A former employee of British Columbia Hydro (“Lee”), successfully applied for a judicial review of the decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) which declined to refer his complaint for a hearing before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Investigative bodies – Evidenciary issues Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2200, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 22, 2003, Ross J. Lee had been employed as an engineer with BC ...

The Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre (“Ingamo”) appealed from a decision of the Fair Practices Officer in which Bergeron’s complaint of discrimination was allowed and damages for the lost wages and humiliation were awarded. The court allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Fair Practices Officer.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Fair Practices Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre v. Bergeron, [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 51, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, July 30, 2003, Vertes J. Bergeron, ...

St. Anthony Seafoods Limited Partnership (“St. Anthony”) applied for an Order that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture issue it a licence to process snow crab. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture denied making any prior commitment to issue a licence for the processing of snow crab and the court agreed and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Fisheries – Permits and licences – Compliance with legislation – Powers under legislation – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Legitimate expectations – Promissory estoppel St. Anthony Seafoods Limited Partnership v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture), [2003] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, July 31, 2003, ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...