An Indian (“Pogson”) within the meaning of the Indian Act successfully applied for a reference under s.74(1) of the Firearms Act (the “Act”) to overturn the decision of a delegate of the Chief Firearms Officer who had rejected her application for a licence to possess and acquire non restricted firearms.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Firearms – licences – Infringement on Aboriginal rights – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Firearms Officer – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Judicial notice Pogson v. Alberta (Chief Firearms Officer), [2004] A.J. No. 248, Alberta Provincial Court, March 1, 2004, Demetrick Prov. ...

Fryingpan, who was allegedly assaulted by a police officer, successfully applied to quash the decision of the Edmonton Police Commission (the “Commission”) to hold his complaint about the officer’s conduct in abeyance and for a direction that the complaint be reviewed pursuant to s.46(3) of the Police Act R.S.A. 2000,CP-17

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Police Complaint Commissioner – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Bias – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Fryingpan v. Edmonton (City) Police Commissions, [2004] A.J. No. 225, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2004, Murray J. In October 2002, Fryingpan’s mother filed a complaint ...

The appeal by an employer (“Vantage”) from a decision of the Human Rights Panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission was dismissed where the court found that the evidence considered by the Panel clearly established that Vantage had not given consideration to accommodation of the physical limitations of the complainant (“Marcil”). The court also upheld the Panel’s decision to award $28,000 as compensation for lost employment income.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Vantage Contracting Inc. v. Marcil, [2004] A.J. No. 368, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 29, 2004, ...

On judicial review, the applicant, Siksika Nation (“Siksika”), sought to quash the decision of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (the “Board”) granting a liquor licence to the respondent, Walji Holdings Limited (“Walji”) on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and breached the principles of natural justice. The Court, in light of the applicable law and the strict standard of review, found that the decision to grant the licence was not patently unreasonable and therefore did not warrant judicial intervention. However, the Court did note that the Alberta gaming and liquor legislation was deficient in failing to enumerate public interest as a consideration in granting licences but, being constrained by the wording of the legislation, had to dismiss the application for judicial review.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Powers under legislation – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Siksika Nation v. Walji ...

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd (“ATCO”) successfully appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the “Board”) on the basis that the Board lacked the jurisdiction to allocate to customers some of the proceeds of the sale of assets formerly used for utility purposes

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Jurisdiction – Sale of assets – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2004] A.J. No. 45, Alberta Court of Appeal, January 27, 2004, ...

The appeal of the College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (the “College”) from the decision of the Health Disciplines Board (the “Board”) reversing a decision of the College Conduct and Competency Committee (the “Committee”) regarding the conduct of a member (“Zieniewicz”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the Committee failed to properly consider all evidence at the hearing of Zieniewicz and that the Board properly applied the standard of review in reversing the Committee’s decision.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Hearing Aid Practitioners – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Supervision of trainee – Delegated supervision – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (Council of) v. Zieniewicz, [2003] A.J. ...

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Appeals Commission of the WCB (the “Appeals Commission”) made no reviewable error in concluding that the Respondent was an insured worker acting in the course of his employment when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Applicant who was similarly subject to the operation of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15 (the “Act”). In the result, the Applicant was barred by operation of s. 23(1) of the Act from pursuing a civil action commenced against the Respondent for losses occasioned in the accident.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Statutory provisions – Worker – Definition – Immunity from civil actions – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions Barker v. Sowa, [2003] A.J. No. 1276, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 16, 2003, Bielby J. The Applicant applied for judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Commission dated August 7, ...

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 employee (“Baxandall”) of R.J.V. Gas Field Services Ltd., resigned his employment and went into the same business as his former employer, the manufacturer of polyurethane panels. R.J.V. moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Baxandall from soliciting or selling to the customers of R.J.V., and the application was granted by the chambers judge. At a later hearing, the chambers judge modified the injunction, deciding to allow Baxandall to sell to the customers of R.J.V. but continuing to block him from canvassing or soliciting those customers, pending the trial of the action. Baxandall and his new company successfully appealed the original Order with the Court of Appeal ordering that the injunction be vacated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Post employment obligations – Restraint of trade – Remedies – Injunctions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness R.J.V. Gas Field Services Ltd. v. Baxandall, [2003] A.J. No. 731, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 5, 2003, Russell and Wittmann J.J.A. and Smith J. (ad hoc) In granting the original ...

The applicant (“Smith”) was unsuccessful in his application seeking an order that the Ombudsman reconsider its decision with respect to Smith’s complaint that the Alberta Department of Energy unfairly administered Smith’s application for a Small Power Research Allocation. The court found that no lack of jurisdiction had been shown on the part of the Ombudsman and the court was unwilling to substitute its own conclusions for those of the Ombudsman.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Ombudsman – Jurisdiction – Privative clauses Smith v. Alberta (Ombudsman), [2003] A.J. No. 688, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, May 29, 2003, Lee J. In 1998, the Small Power Research and Development Act and Regulations were enacted by the Alberta Government to provide the authority to allocate to an eligible ...