A group of petitioner residents applied to quash two rezoning bylaws adopted by the council of the District of West Vancouver. The application alleged that West Vancouver city council had breached procedural fairness by receiving a report from the Director of Planning regarding the rezoning issue following the close of a public hearing. The report was not made available to the public prior to the council adopting the bylaws, which had the effect of allowing three lots that were formerly used for single family dwellings to be redeveloped for 10 residential townhouses.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Change of by-laws – Appeals – Judicial review – Public hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure Hubbard v. West Vancouver (District), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2546, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 28, 2003, Stromberg-Stein J. The court held that there was a breach of procedural fairness ...

An employee of Canpar Industries suffered an off-work injury and received long-term disability benefits paid by a plan provided by the employer in accordance with a collective agreement. The employer ultimately dismissed the employee, and the employee grieved his dismissal, saying that it was a violation of the collective agreement and essentially a matter of discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code. The employer objected to the jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator to hear that grievance, and the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the employer’s objection that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of accommodation with respect to disability and the Human Rights Code. Canpar Industries appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that where a collective agreement is silent regarding the application of human rights principles and the essence of the grievor’s case is that he has been discriminated against by reason of disability, an arbitrator acting under the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 244 may take jurisdiction over the grievance.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaints – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Canpar Industries v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2577, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November ...

The holder of a number of placer mining leases (“Klippert”) appealed a chambers judge’s finding that the Gold Commissioner had jurisdiction to amend his leases for the various areas of land. The chambers judge had found that the Gold Commissioner had jurisdiction under the Mineral Tenure Act to adjust the area of the leases granted, reducing the lease area, but that he had done so without adhering to the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and declared the revisionary provisos to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Gold Commissioner.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Natural resources – Mining leases – Gold Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Powers under legislation – Procedural fairness – Natural justice Klippert v. British Columbia (Gold Commissioner), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2186, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 23, 2003, Newbury, Huddard and Saunders JJ.A. Klippert had acquired various leases of land ...

A former employee of British Columbia Hydro (“Lee”), successfully applied for a judicial review of the decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) which declined to refer his complaint for a hearing before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Investigative bodies – Evidenciary issues Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2200, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 22, 2003, Ross J. Lee had been employed as an engineer with BC ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...

A homeowner (“Covey”) who had leased his home under a one year lease to tenants who later terminated their tenancy on the advice of their physician, applied for judicial review of two decisions of an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406. In the first decision, the arbitrator had ruled in favour of the tenants and, in the second one, the arbitrator reviewed and rejected fresh evidence that Covey brought forward in support of his position. The court dismissed Covey’s application on the basis that the decision of the arbitrator and his review of that decision were not patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Termination – Evidence – Damages – Arbitration and award – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Covey v. St. Denis, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1795, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2003, Melnick J. Covey had rented his house to Tyrone and Rosemarie St. Denis ...

The Petitioner sought a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator who, in a “letter decision”, concluded that the Petitioner had failed to comply with the demand under section 254 of the Criminal Code to supply a breath sample and imposed a prohibition of driving for 90 days. The test on judicial review was whether the decision was patently unreasonable. The court held that there was no evidence that the officer read the written demand to the accused and therefore the adjudicator’s decision to impose a 90-day prohibition was patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyzer test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Evidence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hewitt v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1877, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 9, 2003, Williamson J. The Petitioner sought a judicial review of ...

The Petitioners, female communications operators at the Vancouver Police Department, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision dismissing their claims that they were paid less than male communications operators doing the same work at the Vancouver Fire Department contrary to sections 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Tribunal concluded that for the purposes of wage discrimination under section 12 of the Code, the City, who employed the Fire Dispatchers, was not the Petitioner’s employer and therefore no wage-discrimination between employees of different sexes could have occurred.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Reid v. Vancouver (City), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2043, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 3, 2003, Garson J. Section 12 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, ...

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee (“WCWC”) appealed a decision of a chambers judge setting aside the WCWC’s petition for judicial review of a Ministry of Forests District Manager’s decision (“DM”) that a logging cutback referred to in a Forest Development Plan (“FDP”) met the requirement of s.41(1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.159 (the “Code”) as it related to the spotted owl, in that the FDP would “adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applied”. The appeal was dismissed.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Environmental issues – Forest practices – Precautionary principle – Wildlife habitat – Spotted Owl – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forestry, South Island Forest District), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1581, British Columbia Court of Appeal, July 8, ...

The Minister of Health Planning was successful in overturning a portion of the remedy aspect of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal directing the Minister to amend the birth registration form to provide an option of identifying as a parent, a non-biological parent who is the co-parent of a mother or a father. The court found that the Human Rights Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to Order that the Minister cease discriminating against same gender parents but exceeded its jurisdiction in directing that the Minister take specific steps with respect to altering the birth registration form.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Declaratory relief – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Sexual orientation – Gender – Parent – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia (Minister of Health Planning) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2003] B.C.J. No. 17552, British ...