A standard of correctness applies to an appeal from a chambers judge’s decision on a standard of review to be applied to a tribunal’s decision. The appellate court is in the same position as the reviewing judge. In this case, the chambers judge erred in concluding that a standard of reasonableness simpliciter applied to the tribunal and the appeal was allowed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review of appellate court – Correctness test – Not patently unreasonable Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Telus Communications Inc., [2002] A.J. No. 1068, Alberta Court of Appeal, September 4, 2002, Berger, O’Leary and Hunt JJ.A. The Municipal Government Board (“MGB”) determined that feature software used in ...

The Applicant sought judicial review of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission’s refusal to accept a complaint. The court applied a standard of correctness. The Commission’s Certificate was correct and held that the Commission is without jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, which did not concern any ground of discrimination covered by the Act.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction – Access to child’s medical records by a divorced parent – Privative clauses – Boards and tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Jurisdiction of court G.S. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 980, Alberta Queen’s Bench, July ...

A number of adjoining landowners had successfully sought review of a Minister’s order granting an expansion of a landfill before the court. The Court of Appeal reversed the chambers judge’s decision and determined that a Minister’s order was not patently unreasonable and the failure to provide reasons in these circumstances did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Environmental hearings – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Breach of procedural fairness – Failure to provide reasons Fenske (c.o.b. Glomick Farms) v. Alberta (Minister of Environment), [2002] A.J. No. 823, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 25, 2002, Berger, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A. The Beaver Waste Management Services Commission ...

Stinchcombe succeeded in his appeal of the decision allowing the Law Society of Alberta to proceed with two charges against him relating to events occurring in 1986 and 1987. The Court held that Stinchcombe’s ability to defend the charges had been prejudiced by the Law Society’s inordinate and inexcusable delay and that this constituted a denial of natural justice.

28. May 2002 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Delay – Hearings – Disclosure – Judicial review – Standard of review- Correctness test Stinchcombe v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] A.J. No. 544, Alberta Court of Appeal, April 26, 2002, Conrad, O’Leary and Paperny JJ.A. On ...

An Order-in-Council ordering striking teachers back to work was held to be ultra vires and of no force or effect due to a failure by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to consider each dispute separately and to meet a condition precedent to issuing the back to work order; namely finding that there was an emergency which was causing or may cause unreasonable hardship

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Legislation – Back to work orders – Questions of jurisdiction – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Standard of review Alberta Teachers’ Assn. v. Alberta, [2002] A.J. No. 268, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 1, 2002, Wachowich C.J.Q.B. The Alberta government ordered striking teachers back to work pursuant to a provision in ...