On an application for judicial review of a decision of a Human Rights Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), the court found that the Commissioner erred in law in finding gender discrimination against the complainant with respect to her rate of pay as a summer police constable. However, the court found that the Commissioner’s decision that the complainant was discriminated against in employment on the basis of gender was supported by the evidence and there was therefore no reviewable error with respect to that issue.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Burden of proof – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter DeWare v. Kensington (Town), [2004] P.E.I.J. No. 40, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 28, 2004, Matheson J. The ...

The Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board (the “Committee”) did not err in holding that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Secretary of the Prince Albert Board of Revision (the “Board”) since the decision of the Secretary was a decision of the Board within the meaning of section 260 of the Urban Municipality Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Municipal boards – Property assessment – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Jurisdiction Prince Albert (City) v. Riocan Holdings Inc., [2004] S.J. No. 337, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, May 17, 2004, Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Lane JJ.A. A taxpayer filed a notice of appeal of an assessment with the Secretary ...

An appeal pursuant to section 40(8) of the Mineral Tenure Act was allowed as the court found that the Chief Gold Commissioner erred in finding that there had not been a good faith attempt by the Appellant to comply with the staking requirements of the Act with respect to his mining claim and the Appellant’s non-compliance did not have a tendency to mislead

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Mining leases – Gold Commissioner – Staking requirements – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Compliance with legislation Tyerman v. Kreft, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1016, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 19, 2004, E.R.A. Edwards J. The Appellant brought an appeal pursuant to section 40(8) of the Mineral Tenure ...

The Petitioner, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) had standing to bring the Petition since the enabling legislation separated the investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions of the APEGBC. The clear purpose of the Act was to establish the independence and impartiality of the three functions. The Petitioner was not seeking to recover judgment against itself; rather it was seeking a determination of the correctness of a ruling made by a statutorily created panel with distinct functions and responsibilities. However, the court could not conclude that the panel’s decision represented an error on the face of the record.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Governance – Functions of a self-governing body – Discipline committee decisions – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Certiorari Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia v. Visser, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1053, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 25, 2004, Cullen J. The APEGBC sought, ...

The court declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...