The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the “LCBO”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court overturning the decision of an Administrative Tribunal refusing to issue a witness summons requested by a liquor licensee, Lifford Wine Agencies (“Lifford”), on a motion to stay a hearing before the Tribunal in which the possible revocation of Lifford’s licence was at issue. Lifford asserted that its right to a fair hearing was irreparably compromised by interference with witnesses it proposed to call to give evidence in support of its defence to allegations that it violated provisions of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act and applied for a motion to stay the hearing. During an adjournment in the stay motion, the LCBO engaged the services of a private investigator. The investigator interviewed most of the witnesses summoned by Lifford. Lifford sought the issuance of a summons to require the investigator to provide evidence before the Tribunal on the stay motion and to produce transcripts or other recordings of the interviews. The Tribunal declined to issue a summons on the basis that the investigator’s proposed evidence was irrelevant to the subject matter of the stay motion. On judicial review, the Divisional Court overturned the ruling and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Permits & licences – Stay of proceedings – Appeals – Hearings – Judicial review application – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witness tampering – Natural justice – Evidence – Privilege Ontario (Liquor Control Board) v. Lifford Wine Agencies, [2005] O.J. No. 3042, Ontario ...

The Consumers’ Association of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. and the Manitoba Society of Seniors (the “Applicants”) applied for judicial review of an Order made by the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba (the “Board”) with respect to an ex parte Order of the Board that permitted Centra Gas Manitoba Inc. (“Centra”) to increase its natural gas rates by approximately 10% effective February 1, 2005 without any notice to or input from Centra’s customers. The court held that there was no evidence presented to the Board that supported the exceptional requirements necessary to justify of an ex parte hearing. The Board therefore should not have heard Centra’s interim application on an ex parte basis and the Applicants were entitled to an Order quashing the interim rate increase ordered by the Board following the ex parte hearing.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Rate increases – Appeals – Hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Ex parte orders – Evidence – Interpretation of legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Consumers’ Assn. of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. v. Manitoba (Public ...

The Workers’ Compensation Board appealed the decision of the Appeals Commission (the “AC”) which determined that while the deceased was a director of the lumber corporation at the time of the accident, at the time of his death he was engaged in the activities of a “worker”. The court confirmed the AC’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Worker – Definition – Director of corporation – Interpretation of legislation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Appeals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), [2005] A.J. No. 894, Alberta Court of ...

The Applicant both appealed and applied for judicial review of a decision of the Appeals Commission of the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board (the “AC”) upholding a decision of the Claims Services Review Committee (the “CSRC”) which denied the Applicant further benefits for a work related injury. The appeal was dismissed, and a judicial review of the decision of the AC was denied on the basis that even though the AC had erred in holding that it could not review jurisdictional issues regarding the CSRC, the de novo hearing before the AC was an adequate alternative remedy to sending the matter back to the CSRC for a rehearing and the decision of the AC that the Applicant was not entitled to further benefits was reasonable.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Appeals – Jurisdiction to hear – Judicial review – Judicial review application – Natural justice – Remedies – Alternative remedies Martinson v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2005] A.J. No. 896, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, July 15, 2005, Macklin ...

A sergeant of the Regina Police Force (“Watson”) was successful in obtaining an order quashing a disciplinary decision on the basis that there was inordinate delay by the Saskatchewan Police Commission (the “Commission”) in responding to Watson’s request for permission to appeal the decision

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Hearings – Appeals – Unreasonable delay – Test – Judicial review – Natural justice – Delay – Privative clauses Watson v. Saskatchewan (Police Commission), [2005] S.J. No. 407, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, June 16, 2005, Hunter J. On December 18, 1999, ...

A teacher (“Kempling”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissing his appeal from a decision of a Hearing Panel of the British Columbia College of Teachers (the “College”) finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the College, and suspending his teaching certificate for one month. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the court below was not in error in upholding the decision of the Panel. The Court of Appeal held that it was not open for Kempling to raise section 2(a) of the Charter as he had failed to appear before the Panel at the first hearing and laid no evidentiary basis to assess any alleged infringement of his religious freedom.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Appeals – Evidence – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Kempling v. British Columbia College ...

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Edmonton Journal Group (the “Media Intervenors”) were successful in their appeal from the chambers judge’s decision to quash the decision of an inquiry judge granting “interested person” status to the media in a fatality inquiry. The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge did not appropriately apply the reasonableness standard in reviewing the inquiry judge’s decision and instead substituted his own opinion for that of the inquiry judge.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Media access to hearings – Hearings – In camera hearings – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Certiorari Wasylyshen v. Wenden (Appeal by Canadian Broadcasting Corp.), [2005] A.J. No. 710, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 1, ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a decision of the Respondent Association’s Appeals Committee which had overturned the Appellant’s acquittal on charges of professional misconduct and substituted a verdict of guilty on some charges. The Court held that the Appeals Committee had misstated and misapplied the reasonableness standard in reviewing the Conduct Committee’s decision.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Nelson v. Alberta Assn. of Registered Nurses, [2005] A.J. No. 821, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 29, 2005, Hunt, Berger and Costigan JJ.A. The Appellant was a Registered Nurse who, after a ten-day hearing, was acquitted by ...

The P.E.I. Court of Appeal increased the general damages awarded to the Appellant for a breach of his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from $15,000 to $75,000 on the basis that the trial judge overlooked evidence regarding the consequences of the Respondent’s infringement on the Appellant

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Judicial review – Appeals – Evidence – Standard of review of appellate court Morin v. Prince Edward Island Regional Administrative Unit No. 3 School Board, [2005] P.E.I.J. No. 42, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Appeal Division, ...

The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the executive of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (“STF”) and set aside the finding that a school principal (“Casavant”) was guilty of professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming to a teacher where the Court found that the report tendered to the executive by the Professional Ethics Committee (the “Committee”) was inadequate

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Teachers Federation – Appeals – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Reasons – Report adequacy of – Compliance with legislation Casavant v. Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, [2005] S.J. No. 257, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, April 21, 2005, Cameron, Lane and Richards JJ.A. ...