An appeal by the University from a judge’s conclusion that the human rights complaint against the University was not defective, was dismissed. A finding of “probable cause” under the old Saskatchewan Human Rights Code was procedural in character. As such, the requirement did not survive recent amendments. The conclusion that the complaint was filed by a person was a finding of fact which was entitled to substantial deference. The judge’s decision on that point was reasonable. The Commission had no obligation to obtain the consent of the person aggrieved to hear the complaint and therefore did not err in failing to consider that question.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Legislation – Retrospective operation – Procedural requirements and fairness University of Saskatchewan v. Women 2000, [2006] S.J. No. 231, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, April 17, 2006, Cameron, Richards and Smith JJ.A. A group of ...

The Court affirmed, in part, an Order of the Respondent Committee requiring a physician to repay professional fees pursuant to the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Billing matters – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Wong v. Joint Medical Professional Review Committee, [2005] S.J. No. 690, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, November 15, 2005, Ball J. The Appellant was a family physician who ...

A family physician (“Dr. Anstead”) appealed an order of the Joint Medical Professional Review Committee (the “Committee”) requiring him to repay $15,746.72 in professional fees. The Court held that the reasons provided by the Committee were insufficient and referred the matter back to the Committee with a direction to provide supporting reasons for its decision.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Billing matters – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Failure to provide reasons – Test – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Anstead v. Joint Medical Professional Review Committee, [2005] S.J. No. 373, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

A sergeant of the Regina Police Force (“Watson”) was successful in obtaining an order quashing a disciplinary decision on the basis that there was inordinate delay by the Saskatchewan Police Commission (the “Commission”) in responding to Watson’s request for permission to appeal the decision

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Appeals – Unreasonable delay – Test – Judicial review – Natural justice – Delay – Privative clauses Watson v. Saskatchewan (Police Commission), [2005] S.J. No. 407, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, June 16, 2005, Hunter J. On December 18, 1999, ...

The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the executive of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (“STF”) and set aside the finding that a school principal (“Casavant”) was guilty of professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming to a teacher where the Court found that the report tendered to the executive by the Professional Ethics Committee (the “Committee”) was inadequate

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Teachers Federation – Appeals – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Reasons – Report adequacy of – Compliance with legislation Casavant v. Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, [2005] S.J. No. 257, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, April 21, 2005, Cameron, Lane and Richards JJ.A. ...

The Saskatchewan Cities Act states that an appeal from the decision of City Council must be brought within 30 days of the date the decision was made and the court was therefore without jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s appeal as it was commenced 37 days after this date

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Limitations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Markwart v. Prince Albert (City), [2005] S.J. No. 193, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, March 23, 2005, Klebuc J. The Applicants brought, amongst other things, an appeal pursuant to section 329(4) of the Saskatchewan Cities Act for an order quashing ...

On judicial review, the court held that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Human Rights Tribunal member’s decision to order the matter to proceed to an inquiry was unreasonable

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon Regional Health Authority v. Kahsai, [2004] S.J. No. 417, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, May 27, 2004, Foley J. The Saskatoon Regional ...

The Assessment Appeals Committee of the Saskatchewan Municipal Board (the “Committee”) did not err in holding that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Secretary of the Prince Albert Board of Revision (the “Board”) since the decision of the Secretary was a decision of the Board within the meaning of section 260 of the Urban Municipality Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Municipal boards – Property assessment – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Jurisdiction Prince Albert (City) v. Riocan Holdings Inc., [2004] S.J. No. 337, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, May 17, 2004, Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Lane JJ.A. A taxpayer filed a notice of appeal of an assessment with the Secretary ...

The Board of Education for the Regina School District applied unsuccessfully for an Order setting aside the decision of the Board of Reference which was convened to determine whether or not School Division No. 4 had acted reasonably in terminating a teacher’s contract. As there was no error on the face of the record, the court held that the School District failed to establish that the decision of the Board was patently unreasonable and their application was dismissed with costs.

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Teachers – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Board of Reference – Interpretation of Evidence – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Regina School Division No. 4 v. Hallgrimson, [2004] S.J. No. 198, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, March 25, 2004, Dawson J. Gilbert ...

In January 1999, Staff Sergeant Marvin Taylor tendered his resignation to the Regina Police Service. He left the service due to the stress in his relationship with his superior. Over three years later, Mr. Taylor submitted a claim to the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) for compensation on the grounds that he left his employment due to stress. The stress claim was rejected at all levels of the WCB. After exhausting his internal appeals, Mr. Taylor applied to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. The court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the court’s task was to address the question of whether the WCB’s decision lacked reason and/or rationality. The Court held that Mr. Taylor had not demonstrated that the decision was patently unreasonable and the application was dismissed.

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Stress claims – Test – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review application – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Appeal process – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Taylor v. Workers’ Compensation Board, [2004] S.J. No. 224, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...