The reviewing judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application as the adjudicator interpreted the discrimination provisions in the Applicant’s collective agreement in a way that was neither silly, bordering on the absurd, nor clearly irrational. The construction given to the discrimination provisions was rationally supported by the relevant legislation.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Bainbridge v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), [2005] N.B.J. No. 114, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 10, 2005, W.S. Turnbull, M.E.L. Larlee and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. The Applicants ...

A Superintendent of Motor Vehicles-delegated adjudicator decision that a driver (“Taylor”) was issued a valid breathalyzer demand prior to being suspended was restored on the Superintendent’s appeal from a judgment which had remitted the matter to a delegate of the Superintendent for disposition

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyzer test – Adjudication – Evidence – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Taylor v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2004] B.C.J. No. 2613, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 8, 2004, Lambert, Newbury and Saunders JJ.A. On March 27th, ...

An adjudicator’s decision which confirmed a driving prohibition under the Motor Vehicle Act was set aside on the basis that the adjudicator erred in relying on a Report to Crown Counsel which did not form part of a sworn or affirmed report from a peace officer, as required by the Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness Neill v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1197, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 10, 2004, Cullen J. The Petitioner sought a review of an ...

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia (“AIBC”) was unsuccessful on an application for judicial review of the adjudication of a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act request for various employment contracts of executives with AIBC, made by a former employee of AIBC (“Redenbach”)

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Architectural Institute of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] B.C.J. No. 465, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 18, 2004, Metzger J. Redenbach requested various information from AIBC, some of ...

This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in a judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35 (“PSSRA”). The issue was whether the Adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness. The Trial Division Judge found no breach of procedural fairness and dismissed the judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and quashed the decision of the Adjudicator.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Adjudication – Evidence Gale v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2004] F.C.J. No. 186, Federal Court of Appeal, January 12, 2004, Strayer, Rothstein and Sharlow JJ.A. Mr. Gale was a correctional officer at a Saskatchewan Penitentiary. A female colleague made a complaint ...

An application by the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“CLO”), for judicial review of an Order and a reconsideration decision issued by an adjudicator of the Respondent Information and Privacy Commissioner, to the effect that the senior adjudicator, David Goodis, be precluded from participating in the judicial review of the Order and subsequent reconsideration decision issued by him regarding a request by Jane Doe, a former client of CLO, for the file created while she was a child client of CLO and where CLO acted as her litigation guardian in two motor vehicle accident cases. The motion was dismissed and the Court considered and dismissed the judicial review application itself.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Privacy commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Statutory interpretation – Adjudication – Crown counsel – Definition – Crown litigation privilege – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] O.J. No. ...

A former school teacher (“Lurette”) who had been terminated from his employment after an investigation into a complaint alleging that he had engaged in sexual conduct with a student successfully applied for judicial review to quash the Board of Adjudication’s decision upholding the Province of New Brunswick’s decision to have him dismissed. Lurette alleged that the role of the Chair of the Board of Adjudication (“Poirier”) as an employee of the Service New Brunswick subsequent to the hearing but prior to the Board of Adjudication’s decision being rendered, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Adjudication – Judicial review – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test – Procedural fairness – Natural justice Lurette v. New Brunswick (Minister of Education), [2003] N.B.J. No. 353, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, September 19, 2003, Young J. The court reviewed the principles of fundamental justice as including ...

The Petitioner sought a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator who, in a “letter decision”, concluded that the Petitioner had failed to comply with the demand under section 254 of the Criminal Code to supply a breath sample and imposed a prohibition of driving for 90 days. The test on judicial review was whether the decision was patently unreasonable. The court held that there was no evidence that the officer read the written demand to the accused and therefore the adjudicator’s decision to impose a 90-day prohibition was patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyzer test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Evidence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hewitt v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1877, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 9, 2003, Williamson J. The Petitioner sought a judicial review of ...

Manitoba was unsuccessful in its appeal of a decision allowing a Statement of Claim filed by one of its employees (“Desrivieres”) to stand. The action commenced by Desrivieres sought entitlement to disability benefits under the government employee plan. The court held that the dispute resolution mechanism in this Plan did not oust the jurisdiction of the court.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Benefit plans – Dispute resolution schemes – Jurisdiction – Final and binding – Definition – Adjudication – Jurisdiction of court – Labour law – Collective agreements Desrivieres v. Manitoba, [2002] M.J. No. 449, Manitoba Court of Appeal, November 15, 2002, Scott C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton JJ.A. This case involved the issue of whether ...

Ms. Cromie was issued a 24-hour driving prohibition after providing a breath sample to a police officer. On the same day, Ms. Cromie was served with a notice of driving prohibition pursuant to section 94.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318. The adjudicator confirmed the driving prohibition against Ms. Cromie and Ms. Cromie appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that she had a right to cross-examine the arresting officer in front of the adjudicator. Ms. Cromie’s application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Right to cross-examine arresting officer Cromie v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2552, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 4, 2002, Melnick J. On April 6, 2002, Ms. Cromie was pulled ...