In reviewing the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that no injustice occurred as a result of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s decision not to formally invite the Guide Outfitters Association to participate in a written inquiry concerning the production of records relating to the location of grizzly bear kills

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Privacy commissioner – Disclosure – Judicial review – Application to participate in hearing – Natural justice – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter British Columbia (Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] ...

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, ...

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 ...

A medical doctor (“Dr. Li”) was unsuccessful in his application for a stay of the decision of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) that his license to practice medicine be revoked pending his appeal to the Ontario Superior Court

22. June 2004 0
Li v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 1828, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 30, 2004, MacFarland J. In December of 2002, the Committee found that Dr. Li had committed acts of professional misconduct involving the improper performance of breast examinations. The penalty imposed was immediate revocation of Dr. Li’s ...

A teacher (“Mr. G”) successfully applied to have anonymous monikers used with respect to his proposed appeal of a decision by the Hearing Sub-Committee (the “Panel”) of the British Columbia College of Teachers (“College”) which laid out his admissions and the penalty of a reprimand

22. June 2004 0
Mr. G v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2004] B.C.J. No. 944, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 7, 2004, Burnyeat J. Mr. G applied for leave to commence an appeal of the College decision by identifying himself only as “Mr. G”, with his children and the primary complainant also being identified only by initials. Mr. ...

The parents of children living in Labrador Straights in Newfoundland and Labrador claimed that their children have the right to be educated in the minority French language pursuant to Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (“the Charter”), within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The application was unsuccessful.

22. June 2004 0
Chubbs v. Newfoundland and Labrador, [2004] N.J. No. 174, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 6, 2004, Fowler, J. The parents of approximately 19 children sued for the right of their children to attend minority language instruction within their own community, rather than travelling over the Quebec border to attend school in ...

C.J.M. was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two counts of committing mischief. A year later the Nova Scotia Review Board (the “Board”) ordered a disposition which continued a conditional discharge granted to him some months earlier. C.J.M. appealed the conditional discharged contained in the disposition order. C.J.M. alleged that the Board committed certain errors in law, including the failure to follow the principles concerning the duties of a review board in interpreting section 672.54 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”) as set out in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

22. June 2004 0
R. v. C.J.M., [2004] N.S.J. No. 175, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, May 6, 2004, Boland J.A. The Capital District Health Authority (“CDHA”) sought leave to intervene in C.J.M.’s appeal. The Crown opposed the intervention. The Crown argued that CDHA could have appealed the Review Board’s Order in its capacity as a party to the ...

A grain producer (“Pender”) successfully applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Grain Commission (the “Commission”) denying the applicant’s claim against security held under the Canada Grain Act, R.S.C. 1985, C.J. 10

22. June 2004 0
Pender Farms Ltd. v. Canada (Canadian Grain Commission), [2004] F.C.J. No. 798, Federal Court, April 29, 2004, O’Keefe J. Under the Canada Grain Act, a scheme exists to protect grain producers that sell to grain dealers who are or become bankrupt, or otherwise refuse to pay, by establishing a monetary security system. The Commission is ...