The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the complainant’s appeal from virtually every aspect of the Human Rights Tribunal’s decision regarding his complaint against the Law Society, including the Tribunal’s award of costs to the Law Society after the complainant made serious and unfounded accusations against it throughout the proceedings, the Tribunal’s award for past wage loss and failure to make an award for future wage loss, and the Tribunal’s reliance on two cases regarding causation that were not cited by either party during submissions, one of which was not available at the time of the hearing

25. November 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights – Discrimination – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Professional governance and discipline –  Admission to profession – Competence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Remedies – Damages Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2552, ...

Appeal from judicial review decision finding Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding employer’s reporting duties unreasonable

28. October 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Employer – definition – Employer’s duty to report accident – Third parties – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia, [2014] ...

Judicial review from Agricultural Land Commission reconsideration on basis of denial of procedural fairness

28. October 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Agricultural Land Commission – Notice requirements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation McCall v. Agricultural Land Commission, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2285, 2014 BCSC 1717, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 15, 2014, E.M. Burke J. The petitioners were owners of eight separate parcels ...

The BC Supreme Court struck down bylaws passed by the College of Pharmacists which prohibited the use of incentive programs in pharmacies. The court found that the College’s decision to pass the bylaws fell outside the range of possible acceptable outcomes, given the competing public interests and the College’s ability to pass bylaws that are narrower in scope to address their reasonable concerns. The bylaws were found to be overbroad and their net effect was found to be harmful to the public interest in obtaining pharmacy services and prescriptions at the lowest price.

23. September 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Pharmacists – Pharmacists – Professional governance and discipline – Rules and by-laws – Change of by-laws – Public interest – Incentive programs – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sobeys West Inc. v. College of Pharmacists ...

The Appellant car dealer was unsuccessful in seeking a judicial review of the Respondent Registrar of Motor Dealers’ decision that the Appellant committed a deceptive act in the course of the sale of a motor vehicle

22. July 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Motor Vehicle Dealers – Investigations – Consumer protection – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Windmill Auto Sales & Detailing Ltd. v. British Columbia (Registrar of Motor Dealers), [2014] B.C.J. No. 1005, 2014 BCSC 903, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

Appeal from a judgment overturning decision of BC Human Rights Tribunal to allow a late filed complaint in the public interest

22. July 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Application – Premature – Delay – Public interest – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, [2014] B.C.J. No. 1122, 2014 BCCA 220, British ...

The plaintiff, a Board member of the BCMA, distributed private information from Board meetings to non-Board members. At a subsequent Board meeting, allegations were made against the plaintiff regarding her alleged breach of confidentiality provisions in the Code of Conduct and the matter was passed onto a Code of Conduct committee for investigation. The president of the BCMA then sent a letter out to all members notifying them of the investigation into the alleged breach of the Code. The plaintiff sued the BCMA for defamation on the basis of this letter and other communications. The trial judge and Court of Appeal agreed that the letter was defamatory, but that it was made on an occasion of qualified privilege. The Board had a duty to inform the membership of such an issue.

24. June 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and Surgeons – Code of conduct – Defamation – Judicial review – Disclosure – Qualified privilege Wang v. British Columbia Medical Assn., [2014] B.C.J. No. 833, 2014 BCCA 162, British Columbia Court of Appeal, April 30, 2014, I.T. Donald, M.V. ...

The Police Act states that a complaint matter can be reopened for further investigation within 30 days of its dismissal if it is in the public interest to do so, or at any time if new information becomes available that requires investigation. The Commissioner reopened a complaint more than 30 days after it had been summarily dismissed citing the public interest provision as the basis. The body of the order noted that new information had been received, and suggested this was the reason for reopening the matter. The Chambers judge characterized the failure to cite the proper provision as a technicality and upheld the order. The Court of Appeal quashed the order, holding that the defect went to the heart of the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, and the court had no authority to cure a defective order made under the Act.

24. June 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Investigations – Disciplinary proceedings – Public interest – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation Vancouver (City) Police Department v. British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner), [2014] B.C.J. No. 908, 2014 BCCA 181, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 12, 2014, N.J. Garson, A.W. ...

The Court quashed part of the Health Professions Review Board’s decision to return a complaint matter to the Inquiry Committee, including all of the additional documents submitted by the complainant as new evidence. An adjudicator previously assigned to the case at the Review Board had already decided that only 5 of the 9 additional documents were admissible. Thus, the part of the Review Board’s decision which directed the Inquiry Committee to consider all 9 of the additional documents was quashed. The petitioner had also made an application for the use of pseudonyms in the case, and the sealing of the file. The Court dismissed the application because the petition did not involve any extraordinarily sensitive personal information and disclosure would not undermine the purpose of the petition.

22. April 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health Professions Review Board – Physicians and Surgeons – Competence – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Publication ban JC v. Health Professions Review Board, [2014] B.C.J. No. 404, 2014 BCSC 372, British Columbia ...

The appellant appealed a Chambers Judge’s decision denying her application for judicial review, on the ground that the Chambers Judge refused to adjourn the judicial review application in order for her to obtain a transcript of the hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. In fact, no application to adjourn was made to the judge. The judge made a finding of fact that the appellant was advised that she could order a transcript and was told how, but she had not done so. Because a transcript of the Tribunal hearing could be obtained, filing an affidavit setting out the alleged procedural fairness issues was unnecessary and inadmissible. In any event, the judge was satisfied based on the Tribunal’s written reasons that the allegations that the hearing had been unfair were unsustainable and having a transcript would not alter the result of the proceedings before him. There was no error of principle.

25. February 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Hearings – Fairness – Appeals – Practice and procedure – Adjournment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Caster v. Walter F. Evans (1973) Ltd., [2013] B.C.J. No. 2741, 2013 BCCA 529, British Columbia ...