A helicopter pilot (“Veideman”) was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had not erred in concluding that Veideman had not exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention of a regulation by unlawfully operating an aircraft at a distance of less than 500 feet from a person

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Pilots – Disciplinary proceedings – Due diligence – Evidence – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Veideman v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2003] F.C.J. No. 751, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, May 12, 2003, Snider J. Veideman was a helicopter pilot transporting skiers in ...

A prison inmate (“Farrows-Shelley”), sued Correctional Services Canada (“CSC”) in negligence for allegedly allowing him to be double bunked with an individual who, Farrows-Shelley suspected, was known to have proclivities to violence and to be infected with hepatitis C and HIV. The Federal Court of Canada dismissed the action, holding that there was no evidence to establish a violent tendency on the part of Leonard Welch, and that there was no evidence that he was indeed infected with hepatitis C and HIV. The court refused to accept the argument of the Plaintiff that this should be a test case to expand the law, in recognising a duty to warn as distinct from a duty to protect.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Dangerous prisoners – Duty to protect – Duty to warn Farrows-Shelley v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 574, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, April 8, 2003, Aronovitch, Prothonotary The court quoted the decision of Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police, [1998] O.J. No. 2681, wherein the ...

The Respondent was an employee of the Federal Government who suffered severe and long-standing respiratory problems. After a number of long term absences, the Respondent was dismissed on grounds that she was incapable of performing the duties of her office. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission investigated the matter and dismissed the Respondent’s complaint on the grounds that discrimination had not been shown. The Respondent obtained a copy of the Commission’s investigation report and appealed the Commission’s decision to the Federal Court (Trial Division). The applications judge set aside the Commission’s decision to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the investigator had failed to include a great deal of information that he had obtained from the Ministry and consequently the Respondent did not have an opportunity to respond to the information. The Ministry appealed the Trial Division’s decision, arguing that the Commission’s decision-making process did not violate the Respondent’s right to procedural fairness. In allowing the appeal, the court noted that there was no basis for the notion that an investigator has a duty to disclose all information uncovered in the course of investigation to a complainant. Upon reviewing the investigation report, the court concluded that it was reasonable and adequate and that the Commission was entitled to some deference in their decision to dismiss a complaint.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigative bodies – Duty to disclose evidence – Fairness – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Patent unreasonableness Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), [2003] F.C.J. No. 439, Federal ...

The Federal Court Trial Division struck Treaty Seven First Nations’ application for judicial review of the introduction to Parliament of Bill C-7, First Nations Governance Act. Treaty Seven alleged that the Bill was introduced to Parliament without full and meaningful consultation with the First Nation members of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations and the Confederacy of Treaty Seven First Nations and, as such, sought orders in nature of certiorari and mandamus.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Legislation – Government’s duty to consult – Procedural requirements – Judicial review application – No reasonable cause of action Treaty Seven First Nations v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 464, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, March 20, 2003, Gibson J. The Attorney-General of Canada brought an application ...

On appeal from a decision of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”) involving s. 43(4) of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, it was held that the CRTC did not err in law, exceed its jurisdiction or improperly exercise its discretion in rendering its decision with respect to the terms and conditions sought to be imposed by the city of Vancouver on the Respondent, Ledcor Industries Ltd., which was seeking access to the municipality’s roadways to install fibre optic lines

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission – Jurisdiction – Municipalities – Power to enact by-laws Federation of Canadian Municipalities v. AT & T Canada Corp., [2002] F.C.J. No. 1777, Federal Court of Appeal, December 17, 2002, Létourneau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A. This was an appeal from a decision of ...

A complainant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Baltruweit”) was successful in his application to have the court overturn the decision of the Commission to dismiss his complaint at the investigative stage. The court held that the failure of the Commission to provide Baltruweit with the substance of the evidence of a legal opinion relating to the complaint was a breach of its duty of procedural fairness and the matter was referred back to the Commission for a re-determination.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Evidence – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Hearings – Disclosure – Solicitor-client privilege Baltruweit v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1615, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, November 19, 2002, Gibson J. Baltruweit was employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence ...

The Applicant attended at the Joyceville Penitentiary to visit her husband. A drug sniffing dog identified her as having drugs on her person and the guards would not allow the visit. Subsequently, a “risk assessment” was completed without notice to the Applicant and her visiting privileges were suspended. Her application for review was dismissed on the grounds that the issue was moot.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Visiting rights – Judicial review applications – Compliance with legislation – Mootness – Breach of procedural fairness McGahey v. Joyceville Penitentiary, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1281, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, September 19, 2002, Gibson J. On September 30, 2000, the Applicant and her daughter went to the Joyceville Institution ...

Intent is not a necessary precondition to a finding that an act is discriminatory. In the evaluation of a human rights complaint, the Commission must take into account the reality that overt discrimination is rare today and is generally subtle in nature. The appropriate standard of review of the Commission’s decision of whether or not to dismiss a complaint is reasonableness simpliciter. On the facts, the court held that the Commission’s decision was unreasonable and directed an investigation by a new investigator.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Boards and tribunals – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Reasonableness Simpliciter – Investigative bodies – Fairness Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1082, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, July 12, 2002, Beaudry J. A scientist employed by Health Canada sought judicial review of the ...

A senior air traffic controller (“Hudgin”) succeeded in obtaining an order overturning the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal which had confirmed a penalty against Hudgin for giving instructions contrary to the applicable standards governing the separation of aircraft on a runway. The court held that Hudgin was not in breach of his statutory duty as the improper direction at issue was actually made by a trainee under the supervision of Hudgin.

23. April 2002 0
Administrative law – Aeronautics – Air traffic controllers – Supervision of trainee – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Unreasonableness Hudgin v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2002] F.C.J. No. 369, Federal Court of Appeal, March 14, 2002, Décary, Sexton and Evans JJ.A. On December 16, 1997, an air traffic controller-trainee at ...

An Application for Judicial Review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board was dismissed. The Court held that the evidence upon which Appeal Division based its decision was sufficient to support its decision.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – National Parole Board hearings Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), (2001) F.C.J. No. 1089, Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, July 4, 2001, Nadon, J. The Plaintiff (“Cartier”) was serving a 15-year term of imprisonment for manslaughter. The parole board ordered that he be kept in custody ...