The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the National Parole Board from the inmate’s successful habeas corpus application in respect of the Board’s process. The Supreme Court erred in hearing the habeas corpus application because the Board’s statutory appeal process had not been exhausted.

22. July 2008 0
Administrative law – National Parole Board hearings – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Judicial review – Disclosure – Procedural requirements and fairness L.R.F. v. Canada (National Parole Board), [2008] N.S.J. No. 252, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, June 18, 2008, N.J. Bateman, L.L. Oland and J.E. Fichaud JJ.A L.R.F. (the “Offender”) was convicted of several ...

The Court granted the defendant university association’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff university professor’s action against it on the ground that the matter fell into the exclusive jurisdiction of the Manitoba Labour Board. The plaintiff’s action alleged that the UWFA failed to fairly represent him when it agreed to mandatory retirement provisions in the relevant collective agreement. The Labour Relations Act provides a procedure for adjudicating the plaintiff’s complaint. In addition, the dispute involved the negotiation of the collective agreement, which falls within the ambit of the legislation regarding UWFA’s duty of fair representation. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction to hear this matter rested with the Board and not with the Court.

22. July 2008 0
Administrative law – Universities – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory retirement Tomchuk v. University of Winnipeg Faculty Assn., [2008] M.J. No. 229. Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, June 5, 2008, H.C. Beard J. The applicant was the defendant University of Winnipeg Faculty Association (the “UWFA”) in an action brought against it ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the respondent medical association, which by an order of its Council, directed an inquiry committee to hold a new hearing investigating the applicant’s actions. This application was premature because the inquiry committee’s decision was interlocutory in nature and the jurisdictional question exception did not apply. If the application was not premature, the standard of review was reasonableness and the Council’s decisions were reasonable.

22. July 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review application – Premature – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Bajwa v. British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1131, British ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, which had granted leave to appeal the decisions of two Directors of the Ministry of the Environment granting Certificates of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act. The Tribunal’s decision was reasonable in that there was a proper basis for the Tribunal’s finding that the standard of proof for leave to appeal the Directors’ decision was less than a balance of probabilities. In addition, the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable in that there was a proper basis for the Tribunal to grant leave to appeal.

22. July 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Environmental Review Board – Ministerial decisions – Environmental issues – Judicial review – Appeals – Leave to appeal – Evidence – Standard of proof – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environmental Review Tribunal), [2008] O.J. No., 2460, ...