An employee of Weyerhauser (“Mr. Jones”) was successful in his appeal from a decision dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision denying his claim for a loss of earnings pension through the Workers’ Compensation Board

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review of appellate court – Privative clauses – Delegated authority – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Remedies – Mandamus – Certiorari Jones v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2005] B.C.J. No. ...

The Estate of Gordon Stiles (the “Estate”) was denied its application for leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the “Board”) which denied the Estate’s review of its earlier decision to grant Esprit Exploration Ltd. (“Esprit”) a licence to drill a well on the land adjoining the lands owned by the Estate

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Permits and licences – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Appeal process – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Stiles Estate v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2005] A.J. No. 1245, Alberta Court of Appeal, ...

A dentist (“Dr. Hover”) was unsuccessful in his appeal from a decision of the Alberta Dental Association upholding a finding of professional misconduct, including a finding that he had failed to produce his records to them without justification

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Failure to produce records – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Bias – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence –  Of administrative tribunals – Dental Association Hover v. Alberta Dental Association, [2005] A.J. No. 1254, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 3, 2005, Conrad, Picard and ...

When interpreting the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 and its Regulations, the standard of review of the General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, was correctness. The General Manager’s interpretation of the food service requirement, which permitted the sale of alcohol so long as the establishment was primarily engaged in the service of food during all hours of operation, was correct. There was sufficient evidence to support the General Manager’s conclusion that patrons of the Petitioner, 532871 B.C. Ltd., carrying on business as The Urban Well, were not consumers of food. The General Manager’s decision on the application of the law to the facts was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter 532871 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. The Urban Well) v. British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), [2005] B.C.J. No. 1821, British Columbia Court ...

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that female communications operators employed by the police department were not entitled to pay equity with their mostly male peers at fire department. The appropriate standard of review was reasonableness. The tribunal’s decision that the female communications operators were employed by the Vancouver Police Board and the fire dispatchers were employed by the City of Vancouver, and thus equity considerations did not apply as between the two groups, was reasonable.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Wage disparity – Employment law – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Reid v. Vancouver Police Board, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1832, British Columbia Court of Appeal, August 18, 2005, Donald, Lowry and ...

A decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) to institute an inquiry into a complaint after an Investigator appointed by the Commission recommended dismissal of the complaint did not attract the duty of procedural fairness to provide written reasons. In certain circumstances, the duty of procedural fairness requires the provision of a written explanation of a decision where the decision has important significance for the individual and where there is a statutory right of appeal. This was not such a case.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Investigations – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Durrer, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1321, Federal Court, August 8, ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review holding that the lack of a transcript of a hearing before the Respondent Board did not violate the rules of natural justice

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Judicial review – Failure to provide transcript of hearing – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Natural justice Foster v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board), [2005] A.J. No. 1027, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, August 23, 2005, Romaine J. The Applicant had been ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss the Applicant’s allegations of discrimination, but allowed her application with respect to an allegation of retaliation

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Employment law – Conditions of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Limitations of actions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Dubois v. Canada (Attorney ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to refer a complaint to a hearing panel of the Commission. The reviewing judge had correctly found that the chief commissioner’s decision was reasonable.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Investigations – Evidence – Role of investigator – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong, [2005] A.J. No. 1051, Alberta Court of ...

The Court dismissed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s appeal of a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the Appeals Commission. The privative clause and the statutory appeal provision limited the right of appeal from a decision by the Appeals Commission to pure questions of law. The reviewing judge did not err in finding that the Appeals Commission decision could rely on new medical evidence since strict rules of evidence did not apply to a hearing.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Procedural fairness – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Hearings – Rules of evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Appeals Commission, [2005] A.J. No. ...