A person who is subject to an ascertained forfeiture under the Customs Act may not avail himself of the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since that person is not charged with an offence

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Self-incrimination in administrative proceedings Normand Martineau v. Minister of National Revenue, [2004] S.C.J. 58, Supreme Court of Canada, December 16, 2004, McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. In June 1996, a customs officer demanded that the appellant pay $315,458, the deemed ...

The court dismissed an appeal overturning a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal which had held that section 70(6) of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, does not require a distribution of the actuarial surplus when there is a partial wind-up of an Ontario defined benefit pension plan

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Financial Services Commission – Pension plans – winding-up – surplus – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Statutory interpretation – Legislation Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), [2004] S.C.J. No. 51, Supreme Court of Canada, July 29, 2004, McLachlin ...

In weighing the merits of the Appellants’ rezoning requests, the Defendant municipality was discharging a duty delegated to it by the legislature. The Defendant was bound to exercise the powers conferred upon it fairly, in good faith and with a view to the public interest. The Defendant did not fulfil its duty of procedural fairness in refusing two rezoning applications brought by the Appellants as it gave no reasons for its denial. In refusing to justify its decision, the Defendant breached its duty of procedural fairness.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Appeals – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Statutory provisions – Public interest – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Charter of Rights – Discrimination Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] S.C.J. No. 45, Supreme ...

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was entitled to assume jurisdiction over a complaint brought by a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers who alleged that their union’s modification of a collective agreement with the Province of Quebec discriminated against them. The Tribunal was entitled to hear the complaint despite a provision in the Quebec Labour Code requiring that every grievance be submitted to arbitration.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaint – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Charter of Rights – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – ...

The court held that the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal had erred by accepting jurisdiction to decide an issue of alleged discrimination in an application of the Income Security Act, when the legislature had confirmed exclusive jurisdiction on a different tribunal, the Commission des Affaires Sociales (CAS), to hear appeals in respect of decisions made under the Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint under the Income Security Act – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Statutory powers Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Human Rights Tribunal), [2004] S.C.J. No. 35, Supreme Court of Canada, June ...

A labour arbitration board which awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement to an employee dismissed without just cause for non-culpable incompetence did not act unreasonably even when the case law indicated that the jurisdiction to substitute an award of damages in lieu of reinstatement should be exercised in “exceptional” or “extraordinary circumstances”. The board properly considered the whole of the circumstances and reached a reasonable conclusion as to the viability of the employment relationship. The board’s decision fell within the bounds of arbitral jurisprudence requiring a finding of exceptional circumstances prior to substitution of remedy.

22. June 2004 0
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] S.C.J. No. 24, Supreme Court of Canada, April 29, 2004, McLachlin, C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ. The appellant employer hired the respondent grievor as scheduling co-ordinator but dismissed her on the grounds that she failed to meet deadlines ...

The order of the BC Securities Commission imposing the maximum administrative penalty against two securities brokers for breach of a prospectus requirement was restored. The standard of review applicable to the Commissioner’s order was reasonableness, and the focus should be on the reasonableness of the decision or the order, not on whether it was a tolerable deviation from a preferred outcome. If there was a rational basis for the Commissioner’s decision in light of the statutory framework and the circumstances, then the decision should not be disturbed.

22. June 2004 0
Cartaway Resources Corp. (Re) Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission v. Hartvikson et al, [2004] S.C.J. No. 22, Supreme Court of Canada, April 22, 2004, McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ. A group of securities brokers, including the Respondents Harvikson and Johnson (the “Respondents”), failed to ...

The Appellant Imperial Oil was issued a characterization order by the Respondent Minister of the Environment to undertake a site study, including decontamination measures. Imperial Oil declined to do the study, arguing breach of the rules of procedural fairness since the Minister was in a conflict of interest as he himself was being sued for damages by the present owners of the land. The appeal was dismissed. There was no conflict of interest which warranted judicial intervention and the Minister acted within the framework provided by the applicable law and in accordance with the law.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Environmental issues – Contaminated sites – Remediation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Impartiality – Conflict of interest – Personal interests – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Fairness Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment), [2003] S.C.J. No. 59, Supreme Court of Canada, October 30, 2003, McLachlin C.J. ...

Bell brought a motion before a panel of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which had been convened to hear complaints filed against Bell by female employees. Bell alleged that the Tribunal’s independence and impartiality were compromised by two powers: first, the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to issue guidelines that are binding on the Tribunal concerning “a class of cases”, and second, the power of the Tribunal Chairperson to extend Tribunal members’ terms in ongoing inquiries.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights Tribunal – Impartiality – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Reasonable apprehension of bias Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Assn., [2003] S.C.J. No. 36, Supreme Court of Canada, June 26, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel ...

Owen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the offence of second degree murder committed in 1978 while he was in a psychotic state induced by drug abuse. He was then detained in various mental health institutions and was gradually released into the community. However, he began to commit violent offences upon release. In 2000, the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), concluded that Owen continued to constitute a significant danger to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. At the Court of Appeal, the Crown wished to tender fresh Affidavit evidence alleging that, since the date of the Board hearing, Owen had punched another patient, threatened to kill another patient, and was found in the possession of prohibited drugs. The Court of Appeal declined to admit this fresh evidence, and proceeded to review the Board’s Order based on evidence available at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Board’s Order as unreasonable and made a direction that Owen be absolutely discharged. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the Board.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Detention – Danger to public – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. Owen, [2002] S.C.J. No. 31, Supreme Court of Canada, June 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, ...