A medical doctor appealed from the decision of an Inquiry Committee finding him guilty of infamous conduct and suspending him from the practice of medicine. The court refused to interfere with the Committee’s finding on credibility and the appeal was not allowed. In reviewing the Committee’s decision on penalty, the court took a deferential approach and did not overturn the ruling of the highly specialized tribunal.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Fairness – Evidence – Sentencing – Judicial review – Appeal process – Scope of appeal M.M. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2833, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 4, 2002, Bauman J. M.M., a medical doctor, ...

A customer of Airgas Canada Inc. complained that an employee of Airgas, Mr. Fuggle, had placed graffiti at their premises. As a result of the complaint Mr. Fuggle was dismissed by Airgas. Mr. Fuggle submitted a claim to the Director of Employment Standards requesting a determination that he had been dismissed without cause. The Director of Employment Standards concluded that Airgas had just cause to terminate Mr. Fuggle’s employment. Mr. Fuggle’s appeal to the Employment Standards Tribunal was dismissed. Prior to receiving this decision Mr. Fuggle commenced an action in the Supreme Court alleging that he was wrongfully dismissed. Airgas applied pursuant to rule 18A of the Rules of Court for an Order that the claim be dismissed on the basis that there had already been a final determination of the issues between the parties under the Employment Standards Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 113 (“Standards Act”). In dismissing the application the Court exercised its discretion to refuse to apply estoppel.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Employment standards – Termination of employment – Just cause – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Issue estoppel – Discretion of court Fuggle v. Airgas Canada Inc., [2002] B.C.J. No. 2800, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 11, 2002, Burnyeat J. Airgas Canada Inc. applied to the court pursuant to Rule 18A for an order ...

Ms. Cromie was issued a 24-hour driving prohibition after providing a breath sample to a police officer. On the same day, Ms. Cromie was served with a notice of driving prohibition pursuant to section 94.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318. The adjudicator confirmed the driving prohibition against Ms. Cromie and Ms. Cromie appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that she had a right to cross-examine the arresting officer in front of the adjudicator. Ms. Cromie’s application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Right to cross-examine arresting officer Cromie v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2552, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 4, 2002, Melnick J. On April 6, 2002, Ms. Cromie was pulled ...

The Petitioner, British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board (the “Chicken Board”), sought an injunction requiring the Respondent Reid, an organic chicken producer, to cease production of chicken until he had received a grower’s licence and permit from the Chicken Board. The Court granted the injunction, finding that there was nothing in the legislative scheme to exclude organically grown chicken from the reach of the Chicken Board. Certified organic chicken is chicken.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Injunctions British Columbia (Chicken Marketing Board) v. Reid, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2403, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 24, 2002, C.L. Smith J. The Petitioner Chicken Board is one of a number of marketing boards established for various ...

Mr. Helgesen was served with a 90-day administrative driving prohibition after refusing to provide a breath sample. Mr. Helgesen appealed to an adjudicator arguing that he had a reasonable excuse. The adjudicator disagreed and Mr. Helgesen petitioned for judicial review. The court concluded that the adjudicators decision was not patently unreasonable and the judicial review was dismissed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyser test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Not patently unreasonable Helgesen v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2238, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 3, 2002, Macaulay J. Mr. Helgesen was driving a motor ...

Once a fishing guide employee has shown he has been denied employment because of his mental disability, “prima facie discrimination” is established. The onus then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the “standard” imposed by it (reasonable safely on the water) was a bona fide occupational requirement. In doing so, the employer’s direct experience with the employee is relevant evidence. Matter remitted to be determined on proper consideration of evidence.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Disability – Evidence – Duty to accommodate – Occupational requirement Oak Bay Marina Ltd. (c.o.b. Painter’s Lodge) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2029, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 10, 2002, Newbury, Hall and Saunders JJ.A. A fishing guide with a bipolar affective disorder ...

The Petitioner sought to have the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner of Investigation and Mediation’s (the “CIM”) decision to refer a complaint for hearing quashed. The court determined that the CIM’s decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Maple Grove Apartments Ltd. v. Dixon, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1722, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2002, Garson J. This matter involved a review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner of ...

The Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising out of the Defendant’s delivery of an investigation report to the professional association to which she belonged were dismissed. The Defendants were found to have acted in good faith and their actions were protected by absolute privilege.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigative bodies – Powers – Jurisdiction – Qualified privilege Hung v. Gardiner, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1918, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 21, 2002, Joyce J. Following an investigation of the Plaintiff’s supervising chartered accountant, the Professional Conduct Enquiry Committee (“PCEC”) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British ...

A lawyer (“Pierce”) sought a stay of the penalty arising out of a disciplinary action pending his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The penalty included a suspension, an order to pay costs, and publication of the penalty. The Court of Appeal granted the stay but only with respect to the suspension as it found that Pierce would suffer irreparable harm if the suspension were instituted and Pierce ultimately succeeded in his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspension – Stay of suspension Pierce v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2008, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 5, 2002, Donald J.A. On September 16, 2002, the Law Society issued a citation alleging professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a ...

An accountant {“Walman”) was the subject of disciplinary proceedings by his professional association. Findings of misconduct by the Association were appealed by Walman and eventually overturned. Walman brought an action for abuse of public office against the Association and certain employees which was dismissed as the court found that the evidence did not support an inference that the Association’s auditors recklessly exceeded their powers in the disciplinary hearings.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigative bodies – Jurisdiction – Powers – Abuse of public office Walman v. Certified General Accountants Assn. of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1560, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 8, 2002, Curtis J. Walman was an accountant who became the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Certified General ...