The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the Court of Queen’s Bench did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s application for a judicial review of a decision of the New Brunswick Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, since the appellant was a “public utility” and its avenue of appeal was directly to the Court of Appeal. The limitation period had expired and the Board’s decision was beyond judicial review.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities – Judicial review application – Jurisdiction of court – Public utility – definition – Compliance with legislation – Limitations Cooperators General Insurance Co. v. New Brunswick (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities), [2004] N.B.J. No. 289, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, July 22, 2004, ...

The Province of New Brunswick (the “Employer”) appealed the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench quashing the interim decision of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (the “Board”) designating Teachers’ Assistants employed by the public schools as “essential employees”. In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Board’s interim decision was not patently unreasonable as the legislation at issue was subject to an interpretation that would allow for two possible conclusions, and the Board had the right to choose the interpretation it preferred.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Essential employees – Schools – Teachers’ assistants – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2745 v. New Brunswick (Board of ...

The Applicant solicitor was successful in obtaining an Order prohibiting the Respondent Law Society of New Brunswick (the “Law Society”) from continuing any proceedings against him arising out of charges contained in a Notice of Complaint. The court found that the subject matter of the present complaint had already been considered and dealt with by the Law Society and that the matter was res judicata.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Judicial review – Estoppel and res judicata A Solicitor v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2004] N.B.J. No. 81, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2004, Guerette J. Over the period of January and February ...

A former school teacher (“Lurette”) who had been terminated from his employment after an investigation into a complaint alleging that he had engaged in sexual conduct with a student successfully applied for judicial review to quash the Board of Adjudication’s decision upholding the Province of New Brunswick’s decision to have him dismissed. Lurette alleged that the role of the Chair of the Board of Adjudication (“Poirier”) as an employee of the Service New Brunswick subsequent to the hearing but prior to the Board of Adjudication’s decision being rendered, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Adjudication – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test – Procedural fairness – Natural justice Lurette v. New Brunswick (Minister of Education), [2003] N.B.J. No. 353, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, September 19, 2003, Young J. The court reviewed the principles of fundamental justice as including ...

The Provincial Court Judges’ Association of New Brunswick (the “Association”) appealed the lower court’s decision that the Government of New Brunswick had justified its decision to reject the recommendations of a judicial remuneration commission on salary increases, according to a standard of simple rationality. On appeal, it was upheld that the recommendations of a judicial remuneration commission were not binding on government; however, if a government chose to reject them, it had to justify its decision on a standard of simple rationality. Although the Government’s reasons for rejecting the salary recommendation were expressed in recitals, thus exacerbating the difficulty of applying any review standard, it was held that with respect to the parity argument (parity with judges of the Court of Queen’s bench) and attracting qualified applicants, the Government’s decision to reject the Commissioner’s salary recommendation met the simple rationality test.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Remuneration of judges – Judicial Remuneration Commission – Recommendations – Government rejection – Simple rationality standard Provincial Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2003] N.B.J. No. 321, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, August 20, 2003, Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson JJ.A. The government of New Brunswick appointed ...

Parties appearing before adjudicative tribunals are entitled to representation by an agent of their choosing, but tribunals retain a residual discretion to override this general right, provided that the discretion is properly exercised. The Discipline Committee of the Association of New Brunswick Registered Nursing Assistants refused to allow the Appellant, a Registered Nursing Assistant (“RNA”) to be represented by a non-lawyer, a national representative of the Appellant’s union. The fact that the Registered Nursing Assistants Act allowed for legal representation does not support the inference that the right to lay representation has been abrogated. The section is permissive and does not restrict nor prohibit any party from attending with a representative of his or her choice. The Association’s decision to prohibit a non-lawyer to act as the Appellant’s agent was based on a false or unsubstantiated premise that he was practising law in contravention of the Law Society Act and breached its fairness duty. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decisions of the Association, with respect to the finding of professional misconduct and the order to pay costs, were set aside.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Practice and procedure – Boards and tribunals – Right of parties to choose an agent Thomas v. Assn. of New Brunswick Registered Nursing Assistants, [2003] N.B.J. No. 327, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, September 4, 2003, Rice, Turnbull and Robertson JJ.A. The Appellant, a Registered Nursing Assistant, appeared before a Disciplinary Committee of ...

The appeal of a worker (“Gauthier”) of the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, wherein they held that the average earnings he lost through a work-related injury should be calculated considering the period during which he was not receiving any employment income, was dismissed.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Statutory provisions – Average earnings – Method of calculation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Gauthier v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2003] N.B.J. No. 139, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, April 10, 2003, Drapeau C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Robertson JJ.A. The New Brunswick Court ...

A physician holding a “Border Area License” allowing him to work in both the United States and Canada was suspended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick for allegedly prescribing to patients that were not attended by him. Rather than replying directly to the College, the physician sought a judicial review of the College’s decision to suspend. In reviewing the College decision, the court concluded that in urgent circumstances the College has the jurisdiction to effect an immediate suspension of a physician’s license. The court held that the College should be given a great deal of deference in determining which circumstances constitute “an urgent matter requiring immediate action” and that their decision to suspend was reasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Jurisdiction – Fairness – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Loiselle v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2003] N.B.J. No. 111, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 12, 2003, Garnett J. Loiselle ...

A dentist (“Violette”), applied for judicial review of the decision of the New Brunswick Dental Society, in which the Society ordered that Violette be prohibited from treating patients with TMJ disorder and from practising orthodontics. The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application, holding that the Court should not review the decision of the Discipline Committee when the Applicant had available other avenues of review which he had not pursued.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Judicial review – Self-governing professions Violette v. New Brunswick Dental Society, [2003] N.B.J. No. 129, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 26, 2003, Garnett J. Violette argued that the Board did not have legal training, and so he should not have to pursue his option ...