This appeal was one of a set of representative appeals challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s Administrative Licence Suspension Program under the Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6.4. The appellants argued that driving a vehicle should constitute a liberty interest falling within the scope of the “life, liberty or security of the person” phrase used in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and in so doing they reviewed the law of reconsideration.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Charter of Rights – Life liberty or security of the person – Law of reconsideration Thomson v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board), [2003] A.J. No. 420, Alberta Court of Appeal, April 11, 2003, Fraser C.J.A., Picard and Paperny JJ.A. As a general proposition, leave to reconsider ...

The Applicant was a trainer of thoroughbred horses who made an allegation that his horse had been fouled in a race. The Appeal Tribunal concluded that there had been no foul and the Applicant filed for judicial review on the grounds that the decision was patently unreasonable and that natural justice had been breached due to the tribunal’s bias. The court concluded that on the basis of the record, the members of the Appeal Tribunal made their decision in a fair manner and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Horse racing – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Natural justice – Bias – Familiarity – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Greenwood v. Alberta (Appeals Tribunal), [2003] A.J. No. 471, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 15, 2003, Belzil J. The Applicant was a trainer of a thoroughbred horse that ...

The court held that a policy requiring employees to undergo drug or alcohol testing, where the potential consequences of a positive test include the loss of employment, was considered a prima facie violation of section 7(1) of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. H-14 (the “Act”). However, where testing constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement, the section 7(1) prohibition against discrimination based on a physical or mental disability does not apply. The Court held that being drug and alcohol free is a bona fide requirement for employees of a small remote Metis Settlement with ongoing concerns about serious drug and alcohol abuse by community members.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Drug and alcohol testing – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Elizabeth Metis Settlement, [2003] A.J. No. 484, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 17, 2003, Bielby J. Elizabeth Metis Settlement (“the Settlement”) is ...

A Constable with the Calgary Police Service was transferred from the traffic division to the street division for failing to issue enough traffic violation tickets. The applicant argued that the transfer was disciplinary in nature, thus invoking the disciplinary procedures set out in part five of the Police Act, R.S.A. 2000 CP-17 (the “Act”). The applicant applied for a judicial review of the Chief of Police’s decision to transfer him. The court concluded that the decision to transfer the applicant was purely an administrative decision which was not subject to judicial review.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Performance expectation – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions Munday v. Calgary (City) Police Commission, [2003] A.J. No. 280, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2003, Sullivan J. The applicant was a Traffic Constable with the Calgary Police Service and held the rank of Senior Constable II. ...

A professional dog handler, Mr. Lee, was abusive towards volunteer staff. The Confirmation Show Committee recommended that he be found guilty of infractions of show rules and that he no longer be allowed to participate in any Alberta Kennel Club (“AKC”) shows. The complaint was brought before the Discipline Committee of the Canadian Kennel Committee (“CKC”). During the hearing, the Committee members solicited more information about Mr. Lee from a representative of the complainant. The complainant’s representative gave a great deal of irrelevant, prejudicial evidence and the Discipline Committee imposed a two-year period of debarment. Mr. Lee’s appeal to the Appeal Committee of the CKC was dismissed. Mr. Lee then brought an appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, who concluded that the decisions of consensual tribunals are reviewable by a court of law and that Mr. Lee’s procedural rights were breached when the Discipline Committee solicited irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence prior to making its decision.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Procedural requirements – Jurisdiction – Evidence Lee v. Canadian Kennel Club Appeal Committee, [2003] A.J. No. 64, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, January 17, 2003, Lee J. The complaint arose out of dispute between Mr. Lee, a professional dog handler, and ...

An inmate (“Smith”) at the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (“FSCC”) succeeded in his application for judicial review of a decision by the Disciplinary Board which found that he had violated regulations by consuming marijuana. The court held that the Board’s failure to allow Smith to be represented by counsel was a breach of the principles of natural justice as the charge had serious consequences, was complex and Smith did not have sufficient capacity to properly represent himself at the hearing.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Discipline of inmates – Use of narcotics – Judicial review application – Right to legal counsel – Natural justice – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Standard of review – Correctness Smith v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre, [2002] A.J. No. 1472, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, November 28, 2002, Clackson J. Smith was an ...

Alberta Report appealed a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Panel (the “Panel”) made pursuant to s. 33 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980 1980, c-H-11.7. The principal issue on appeal concerned the extent to which the Panel could take notice of evidence introduced before other tribunals and whether in this instance the Panel violated the Appellant’s right to know the case to be met. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted back to the Panel for rehearing.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Evidence of other tribunals – Judicial notice Alberta Report v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 1539, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 10, 2002, Clark J. In the October 13, 1997 edition of its magazine, ...

Detective Robertson, an Edmonton police officer, was the subject of several citations related to his activities while on the police force. During proceedings, Detective Robertson applied to the court for a stay on the grounds that natural justice required that he be provided with funded counsel due to the complexity of the citations. The application to the court failed.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Stay of proceedings – Right to legal representation – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Service, [2002] A.J. No. 1366, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, November 6, 2002, Clackson J. Fifteen citations were launched against Detective Robertson (the “Applicant”) by the Edmonton ...

A teacher applied for judicial review of a hearing committee’s decision of professional misconduct. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the case; however, the Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of professional misconduct concluding that the decision of the hearing committee was unreasonable and improper.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Schools – Parental rights Eggertson v. Alberta Teachers’ Assn., [2002] A.J. No. 1358, Alberta Court of Appeal, November 5, 2002, O’Leary, Costigan and Paperny JJ.A. The Appellant was a teacher with the Calgary ...

A university professor complained that he had been discriminated against under the Universities Academic Pension Plan on the basis of gender as the pension plan provided less of a monthly pension benefit to a married male employee and his spouse than a married female employee and her spouse where the employees and their spouses are of the same age and where the employees have made the same contributions to the Plan over the same length of time. The Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (the “Commissioner”) dismissed the complaint as being “without merit”. The standard of review with respect to the Commissioner’s decision on legal issues or matters of mixed fact and law is that of correctness while the standard for factual findings is reasonableness simpliciter. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the complaint was “without merit” was unreasonable. The Commissioner’s function is that of a gatekeeper. His role is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify passing a complaint on to a human rights panel. In this case, there was sufficient basis in the evidence that the Commissioner ought to have advanced this matter to the next stage.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Mis v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 1320, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 29, 2002, Lee J. The applicant university professor sought to set aside a decision of the ...