The Applicant both appealed and applied for judicial review of a decision of the Appeals Commission of the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board (the “AC”) upholding a decision of the Claims Services Review Committee (the “CSRC”) which denied the Applicant further benefits for a work related injury. The appeal was dismissed, and a judicial review of the decision of the AC was denied on the basis that even though the AC had erred in holding that it could not review jurisdictional issues regarding the CSRC, the de novo hearing before the AC was an adequate alternative remedy to sending the matter back to the CSRC for a rehearing and the decision of the AC that the Applicant was not entitled to further benefits was reasonable.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Appeals – Jurisdiction to hear – Judicial review – Judicial review application – Natural justice – Remedies – Alternative remedies Martinson v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2005] A.J. No. 896, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, July 15, 2005, Macklin ...

An appeal of a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission was dismissed as the Court held that the decision of the Commission was reasonable

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investment Dealers Association – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Derivative Services Inc. v. Investment Dealers Assn. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 2118, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 25, 2005, R.T.P. Gravely, ...

The Appellant was unable to show that the Ontario Securities Commission’s conclusions in overturning the decision of the Ontario District Council of the Investment Dealers Association with respect to one count against the Appellant was unreasonable; nor was it shown that the Commission failed to show appropriate deference to the findings of the District Council. The Commission did not commit any error in principle in substituting a new penalty.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Boulieris v. Investment Dealers Association. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 1984, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 11, 2005, J.D. Carnwath, J.R.R. Jennings and K.E. Swinton ...

It was not unreasonable for the Special Education Tribunal to refuse to provide the Applicant’s son with an intensive behavioural intervention program on the basis that such a program was medical treatment and not education

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – School boards – Powers and duties – Parental rights – Special programs for autistic children – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Special Education Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Clough (Litigation Guardian of) v. Simcoe County District School Board, [2005] O.J. No. 2124, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May ...

The P.E.I. Court of Appeal increased the general damages awarded to the Appellant for a breach of his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from $15,000 to $75,000 on the basis that the trial judge overlooked evidence regarding the consequences of the Respondent’s infringement on the Appellant

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Judicial review – Appeals – Evidence – Standard of review of appellate court Morin v. Prince Edward Island Regional Administrative Unit No. 3 School Board, [2005] P.E.I.J. No. 42, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Appeal Division, ...

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers acted arbitrarily and breached principles of natural justice and fairness in first scheduling a hearing during a time when it knew the Respondent would be out of the country and, second, in then refusing an adjournment of the hearing

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Hearings – Judicial review – Adjournment of hearing application – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Public interest Kalin v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2005] O.J. No. 2097, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 24, 2005, G.D. Lane, P.H. Howden and A.M. ...

The decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a complaint was not patently unreasonable as the Tribunal found that there were insufficient facts alleged regarding any discrimination on the part of the government towards the Complainant to move the complaint out of the realm of conjecture

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – No reasonable cause of action – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Shilander (Re), [2005] B.C.J. No. 1123, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 18, 2005, Gerow J. The Complainant filed a complaint with the B.C. Human ...

The language used by Parliament in the Canadian Human Rights Act is wide enough to cover its own employees; therefore, the former Speaker of the House of Commons could not evoke the principles of parliamentary privilege in order to prevent the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from investigating the Respondent’s complaint. However, the Respondent’s complaints could have been adjudicated under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act which was intended to be the exclusive method of dispute resolution for such employees. As such, the appeal was allowed.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Employment law – Parliamentary employment – Constitutional law – Parliamentary privilege – Application of human rights legislation Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] S.C.J. No. 28, Supreme Court of Canada, May 20, 2005, McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella ...

The Appellants did not have the right to bypass the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec since that body had exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals in respect of entitlement to minority language education, and that administrative appeal process could not be circumvented

Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Human rights complaints – Language rights – Judicial review application – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Jurisdiction – Appeal process – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Charter relief Okwuobi v. Lester B. Pearson School Board; Casimir v. Quebec (Attorney General); Zorilla v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] S.C.J. No. 16, Supreme ...