The Consent and Capacity Board acting pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, in conducting a hearing to determine whether a substitute decision maker is acting in the best interests of the patient, does not have an obligation to call witnesses which could have been called by the substitute decision maker represented by counsel at the hearing. Short reasons of the Board dealing with the prior capable wish of the patient will be considered sufficient by the Court on an appeal where the Court is not prevented from a meaningful review of the correctness of the Board’s decision. An oversight on the part of the Board in failing to make a decision as to incapacity of the patient where the incapacity was largely conceded by the substitute decision maker, is unlikely to succeed as a ground of appeal of the Board’s decision that the substitute decision maker was not acting in the best interests of the patient.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Failure to provide reasons – Adult in need of protection – Capacity – Best interest of incompetent adult – Substitute decision maker – Treatment plans – Compliance with legislation – Hearings – Witnesses – failure to call Grover v. Grover, [2009] O.J. ...

Disciplinary decisions of the British Columbia Law Society are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness. Where a lawyer cannot assemble admissible evidence to make a plausible case of incompetency of another lawyer, then he should not pursue the issue. To press an allegation of substance abuse solely on the basis of opinion, rumour, insinuation, and speculation is to take the matter to the level of professional misconduct. Defence of absolute privilege and fair comment, which would apply in a defamation suit, does not apply in professional disciplinary proceedings.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct – Absolute privilege – Defamation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Goldberg v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 657, British Columbia Court of Appeal, ...

A municipal Board of Directors, such as the Cariboo Regional District Board of Directors, has jurisdiction to govern the conduct of its directors and discipline their misconduct. In inquiring into alleged misconduct by and disciplining one of its members for misconduct, the board has a duty to afford procedural fairness to the member in question. Where complaints are made against the member which the board intended to consider in potentially sanctioning the member’s conduct, the member is entitled to proper notice. Proper notice in these circumstances must convey some precision and be capable of appreciation by the recipient such that he or she is aware of what specific alleged misconduct will be considered and sanctions sought by the board. The person has to be given specifics of the complaints that might permit a reasoned and structured response. He or she should be given a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel, study and respond to the allegations. Where a municipal board acts with a complete disregard for fair process in disciplining one of its members, special costs may be awarded on an application by the member for a judicial review of the board’s decision..

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Regional Districts – Board of Directors – Discipline of directors – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Notice – Fairness – Costs – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure Barnett v. Cariboo (Regional District), [2009] B.C.J. No. 713, British ...

Employer’s refusal to allow a woman who had taken maternity and parental leave to return to work at the conclusion of her leave can be discrimination on the basis of sex. However, in such a case, the Human Rights Tribunal must consider all of the circumstances and ask whether it is reasonable to infer that the maternity leave was a causative factor in the refusal to continue employment. Where the refusal to continue the woman’s employment following maternity leave is based not on the prohibited ground of sex, but rather on the basis of customer or employer preference for the replacement worker, and where valid reasons are provided for the preference, unconnected to any prohibited grounds, an inference of discrimination will not be justified.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Employment law – Termination of employment – Judicial review – Evidence Human Rights Commission v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Health and Community Services), [2009] N.J. No. 34, 2009 NLCA 9, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme ...

Maximum penalty provisions in Section 162, Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c.418, are subject to the statutory interpretation presumption against retrospective operation of statutes. Imposition of the current maximum monetary penalty under this section is “punitive” in nature and cannot be imposed for violations of the Securities Act which occurred prior to the 2006 amendments which changed the maximum penalty. For such violations, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is that in force at the time.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Retrospective and retroactive operation Thow v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2009] B.C.J. No. 211, 2009 BCCA 46, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 12, ...

The Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board decision declining jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim made by an employee of the University of Saskatchewan against the University for harassment was quashed by the Court of Appeal and the matter referred back to the Board. It was incumbent on the Board to examine the grievance advanced by way of arbitration and determine whether and to what extent that claim was a claim for a workplace injury that, if established, would entitle the grievor to compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1. The Board needed to consider not only the fact that the grievor’s claim under the Act was denied, but the basis upon which it was denied. The question is whether the injury claimed falls within the jurisdiction of the Board, not whether the claimant was successful in proving the claim to the Board.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Jurisdiction – Labour law – Arbitration – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter University of Saskatchewan v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Saskatchewan, [2009] S.J. No. 76, 2009 SKCA 17, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, February 6, 2009, ...

Section 67(1), Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 380, which prohibits the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a rate for low income consumers different from that chargeable to other consumers for the same circumstances and conditions respecting electrical service, was found not to discriminate by adverse effect based on the listed categories of sex, race, national or ethnic origin, age and disability in section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the recognized analogous category of marital status. Poverty was not considered an analogous ground under section 15(1) Charter.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Poverty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Utility services – Electricity rates – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Boulter v. Nova Scotia Power Inc., [2009] N.S.J. No. 64, 2009 NSCA 17, Nova Scotia Court of ...

WCB was required to disclose to a newspaper, the Halifax Herald Ltd., names of the 25 employers with highest employee injury incidence and answer related questions. While such disclosure would reveal labour relations information, it would not reveal information supplied by the employers, or if it did, the information was not information supplied in confidence. Disclosure could not reasonably be expected to significantly harm the employers’ competitive position or result in similar information no longer being supplied to the WCB. The disclosure of employers’ names would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy of the injured workers and was, in all the circumstances, in the public interest.

23. December 2008 0
Administrative law – Workers Compensation Board – Disclosure of third party records – Confidentiality – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Invasion of personal privacy – Personal information – definition – Judicial review – Disclosure – Compliance with legislation – Public interest Halifax Herald Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2008] N.S.J. ...

City Council of Brampton was entitled to delegate to its Licensing Committee the power to make recommendations respecting a determination as to whether a “body rub parlour license” should be issued to the applicant. In making the recommendation, the Licensing Committee was required to hold a hearing. However, the City Council was entitled to accept such a recommendation without holding a further hearing in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22.

23. December 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Rules and by-laws – Municipalities – Permits and licences – Planning and zoning – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Versions of legislation – Validity – Procedural requirements and fairness – Discretion of delegated authority 1673233 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Eurohaven ...