The Court considered a challenge to the Labour and Employment Board’s decision that the Superintendent of Pensions possessed an implied power to decide an employment status issue, an implied power that was necessarily incidental to the express power to classify employees of a particular employer. The Court held that this decision had a rational basis and was reasonable.

22. August 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Classification – Labour law – Pensions – Eligibility – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and Employment Boards – Employee classification – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Saint John (City) Pension Board v. New Brunswick ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a residents’ association of a decision by an assessment and planning appeal board which found that the association had waived its right to claim that members on the preservation review board were biased. Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias existed was a question of law and the board should not be afforded due deference. The standard of review was thus correctness. The bias concerns raised by the residents’ association were effective and timely, and it did not matter that there was no formal request that certain board members recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Assessment Appeal Board – Judicial review – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Rothesay Residents Assn. Inc. v. Rothesay Heritage Preservation & Review Board, [2006] N.B.J. No. 227, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, June 1, 2006, Daigle, ...

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by an employee from a decision setting aside an adjudicator’s order reinstating him to his former position, finding that the Province retained the right to dismiss non-unionized civil service employees for cause or with reasonable notice.

23. May 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Government employees – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Adjudications – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2006] N.B.J. No. 118, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 23, 2006, W.S. Turnbull, ...

A health authority terminating the Professional Services Contract of a physician had the duty to act fairly which included the right of the physician to know why his services were not satisfactory, reasons why disciplinary action was contemplated and why the termination was being considered. In addition, the physician should have been given the opportunity to be heard. The duty of fairness did not form part of employment law but stemmed from the fact that the employer is a public body whose powers are derived from statute and must be exercised according to the rules of administrative law.

23. May 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Hearings – Judicial review – Public body – Procedural requirements and fairness Shaikh v. Regional Health Authority 7, [2005] N.B.J. No. 581, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, December 7, 2005, T.W. Riordon J. The applicant ...

The Court quashed the decision of the Respondent Health Authority to permanently revoke the Applicant doctor’s privileges on the basis that the Respondent’s Board of Directors failed to meet the requirements of procedural fairness by hearing evidence in the Applicant’s absence

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Trinh v. Acadie-Bathurst Health Authority, [2005] N.B.J. No. 96, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 3, 2005, R. Léger J. The Applicant was a medical doctor and a member of the medical staff of the ...

The reviewing judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application as the adjudicator interpreted the discrimination provisions in the Applicant’s collective agreement in a way that was neither silly, bordering on the absurd, nor clearly irrational. The construction given to the discrimination provisions was rationally supported by the relevant legislation.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Bainbridge v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), [2005] N.B.J. No. 114, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 10, 2005, W.S. Turnbull, M.E.L. Larlee and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. The Applicants ...

The decision of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act Appeals Tribunal does not issue until such a time as the parties are provided with a copy of the written reasons of the Tribunal. The decision must be signed by all panel members.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Administrative tribunals – Reasons when in effect – Failure to provide signatures on reasons – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction Mattina v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, [2005] N.B.J. No. 22, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, January 27, 2005, Ryan, Daigle and Robertson JJ.A. A hearing before the ...

The appellants were charged with three summary conviction offences relating to tax evasion under the Excise Tax Act. Before trial, the Crown refused to produce or disclose 55 items of information. Among those items were two items revealing the identity of other taxpayers, which the Crown maintained constituted confidential information, and three legal opinions for which the Crown claimed solicitor-client privilege. The trial judge ordered production of these items, a decision that was overturned on judicial review. The appeal of the judicial review was dismissed.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Disclosure of documents – Jurisdiction – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Chapelstone Developments Inc. v. Canada, [2004] N.B.J. No. 450, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, December 2, 2004, Turnbull, Robertson and Richard JJ.A. The trial judge ordered production of these five items, but failed to give reasons for ...

An employer (“Simms”) was unsuccessful in appealing the determination of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Appeals Tribunal (the “Appeals Tribunal”) that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) had not set its rates higher than the rate authorized by the Commission’s own policy at the time

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Assessment rates to employers – Policies – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness T. S. Simms & Co. v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2004] N.B.J. No. 469, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, December 9, 2004, Drapeau C.J.N.B., Ryan ...

A lawyer (“Arsenault”) obtained an order quashing an interim suspension imposed upon him by the Law Society of New Brunswick (the “Law Society”) on the basis that he was not afforded procedural fairness

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspension – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness Arsenault v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2004] N.B.J. No 395, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, August 10, 2004, Russell J. On May 10, 2004, Arsenault was suspended from practising law ...