On appeal to the court for a judicial review of an Appeal Commission decision under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. W200, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Commission’s decision not to read in words to section 1(3) and to decline to pierce the corporate veil was not patently unreasonable.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Worker – definition – Piercing corporate veil – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Poulin v. Manitoba (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2002] M.J. No. 341, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, August 13, 2002, McKelvey J. The Applicant was the sole shareholder, director and president of NL Poulin Ltd. The ...

The appellant had sought an expansion of its liquor licence. The Liquor Licencing Board dismissed this request and an appeal was brought pursuant to section 23 of the Liquor Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. L-9. The appeal was dismissed. When deciding whether to issue a licence, it is not improper for the Board to consider social problems.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Bias – Liquor licencing boards – Social issues 994401 NWT Ltd. (c.o.b. Ravens Pub) v. Northwest Territories (Liquor Licensing Board), [2002] N.W.T.J. No. 66, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, August 8, 2002, Richard J. The Appellant was the licensee of a cocktail lounge, licensed to have 170 patrons ...

The Petitioner sought to have the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner of Investigation and Mediation’s (the “CIM”) decision to refer a complaint for hearing quashed. The court determined that the CIM’s decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Maple Grove Apartments Ltd. v. Dixon, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1722, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2002, Garson J. This matter involved a review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner of ...

The Applicant sought judicial review of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission’s refusal to accept a complaint. The court applied a standard of correctness. The Commission’s Certificate was correct and held that the Commission is without jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, which did not concern any ground of discrimination covered by the Act.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction – Access to child’s medical records by a divorced parent – Privative clauses – Boards and tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Jurisdiction of court G.S. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 980, Alberta Queen’s Bench, July ...

The Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising out of the Defendant’s delivery of an investigation report to the professional association to which she belonged were dismissed. The Defendants were found to have acted in good faith and their actions were protected by absolute privilege.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigative bodies – Powers – Jurisdiction – Qualified privilege Hung v. Gardiner, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1918, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 21, 2002, Joyce J. Following an investigation of the Plaintiff’s supervising chartered accountant, the Professional Conduct Enquiry Committee (“PCEC”) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British ...

A number of adjoining landowners had successfully sought review of a Minister’s order granting an expansion of a landfill before the court. The Court of Appeal reversed the chambers judge’s decision and determined that a Minister’s order was not patently unreasonable and the failure to provide reasons in these circumstances did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Environmental hearings – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Breach of procedural fairness – Failure to provide reasons Fenske (c.o.b. Glomick Farms) v. Alberta (Minister of Environment), [2002] A.J. No. 823, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 25, 2002, Berger, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A. The Beaver Waste Management Services Commission ...

The Corporation of Schreiber and concerned residents brought an application seeking judicial review of a decision by the local School Board to close a high school located in the town. The court dismissed the application for judicial review holding that the Applicants had not met the burden of establishing that the Board had committed a procedural error in reaching its decision to close the school that was so fundamental that it affected the basis of the Board’s decision.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Schools – Closures – School boards – Jurisdiction – Boards and tribunals – Procedural fairness – Judicial review application Schreiber (Township) v. Superior Greenstone District School Board, [2002] O.J. No. 3303, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court – Thunder Bay, Ontario, August 23, 2002, Kozak J. Lake Superior High School has two campuses, one ...

The Yukon Medical Council (the “Council”) was successful in its appeal from a decision holding it to be “an agent of the government of the Yukon” and, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Privacy Commissioner. The Court of Appeal held that the Council was free from interference or control by the Yukon government in the exercise of its powers and, therefore, could not be said to be a “public body” within the meaning of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.Y. 1995, c. 1.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Privacy Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Public body – Definition – Physicians and surgeons – Governance Yukon Medical Council v. Yukon (Information and Privacy Commission), [2002] Y.J. No. 82, Yukon Territory Court of Appeal, August 20, 2002, Finch C.J.Y.T., Donald and Low JJ.A. The Council appealed the ...

A Referee (“Sargeant”) hearing a claim under the Employment Standards Act decided that he was not entitled to consider a limitation period issue in a claim by an employee (“Halloran”) against his former employer with respect to a compensation package offered upon Halloran’s termination. The Referee’s decision was overturned by the Divisional Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was unconscionable for the company to invoke a limitation period to deny Halloran’s claim as there had been a fraudulent concealment of the existence of a cause of action against the company.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Employment standards – Employer’s representations – Termination package – Fraudulent concealment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patently unreasonable decision – Limitations Halloran v. Sargeant, [2002] O.J. No. 3248, Ontario Court of Appeal, August 27, 2002, McMurtry C.J.O., Weiler and Armstrong JJ.A. Halloran was employed by Crown Cork & Seal for 31 ...

A lawyer (“Pierce”) sought a stay of the penalty arising out of a disciplinary action pending his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The penalty included a suspension, an order to pay costs, and publication of the penalty. The Court of Appeal granted the stay but only with respect to the suspension as it found that Pierce would suffer irreparable harm if the suspension were instituted and Pierce ultimately succeeded in his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspension – Stay of suspension Pierce v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2008, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 5, 2002, Donald J.A. On September 16, 2002, the Law Society issued a citation alleging professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a ...