Pump the brakes – sections 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Civil Resolutions Tribunal Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 25 are declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect

20. April 2021 0
Administrative law – Legislation – Legislative Assembly – Constitutional law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Practice and procedure – Summary proceedings – Remedies Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2021] B.C.J. No. 389, 2021 BCSC 348, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 2, 2021, C.E. Hinkson C.J.S.C. Effective April ...

Supreme Court of Canada denies fracking opponent a claim for damages against the Alberta Energy Regulator

17. February 2017 0
Dismissal of claim Alberta Energy Regulator breached right of freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and for Charter damages. Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Charter relief – Freedom of expression – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies – Natural resources – ...

A man (“Conway”) who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of sexual assault with a weapon was unsuccessful in his attempt to have the Ontario Review Board grant him an absolute discharge as a s.24(1) Charter remedy

27. July 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Mental health facility – Treatment plans – Review Board authority –  Remedies – Charter relief – Availability – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies – Prisons – Inmates not criminally responsible for their crimes – Public safety – Statutory provisions – ...

The Court dismissed a petition for a declaration that the sections of the Legal Professions Act, S.B.C. 1998, c.9 and the Law Society Rules allowing a practice review on a solicitor are inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are of no force and effect. The Court further refused to quash the decision of the Law Society’s Practice Standards Committee to conduct a practice review in respect of the Petitioner on the grounds that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and made in bad faith.

Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Boards and tribunals – Disciplinary proceedings – Charter of Rights – Application to disciplinary proceedings – Validity of legislation – Judicial review – Natural justice – Disclosure of third party records – Solicitor-client privilege Greene v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 586, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 21, ...

Parties appearing before adjudicative tribunals are entitled to representation by an agent of their choosing, but tribunals retain a residual discretion to override this general right, provided that the discretion is properly exercised. The Discipline Committee of the Association of New Brunswick Registered Nursing Assistants refused to allow the Appellant, a Registered Nursing Assistant (“RNA”) to be represented by a non-lawyer, a national representative of the Appellant’s union. The fact that the Registered Nursing Assistants Act allowed for legal representation does not support the inference that the right to lay representation has been abrogated. The section is permissive and does not restrict nor prohibit any party from attending with a representative of his or her choice. The Association’s decision to prohibit a non-lawyer to act as the Appellant’s agent was based on a false or unsubstantiated premise that he was practising law in contravention of the Law Society Act and breached its fairness duty. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decisions of the Association, with respect to the finding of professional misconduct and the order to pay costs, were set aside.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Practice and procedure – Boards and tribunals – Right of parties to choose an agent Thomas v. Assn. of New Brunswick Registered Nursing Assistants, [2003] N.B.J. No. 327, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, September 4, 2003, Rice, Turnbull and Robertson JJ.A. The Appellant, a Registered Nursing Assistant, appeared before a Disciplinary Committee of ...

Members of the Petitioner British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (“BCTF”) joined a rally in protest of the decision of the legislature to pass the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, S.B.C. 2002 c. 1. The British Columbia Public Schools Employers Association (“BCPSEA”) brought an application before the Labour Relations Board to declare the attendance at the anticipated rally a breach of section 57 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244. The Labour Relations Board declared that a cessation of work would contravene section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Code. The Petitioners raised an argument that the definition of strike was unconstitutional. The Attorney General of BC brought a preliminary objection, submitting that the court ought to refer the constitutional question back to the Board. The court held that tribunals have the jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of their enabling statutes and remitted the matter to the Board.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Labour Relations Board – Jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions relating to enabling statute British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 785, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 8, 2003, Satanove J. On January 28, 2002, members of the BCTF left the premises of their ...

The Law Society of New Brunswick succeeded on its appeal in having the findings of the Court of Appeal set aside and the sanction of disbarment of a lawyer who had been found to have committed professional misconduct reinstated

Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Disbarment – Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.J. No. 17, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ. The respondent, Mr. ...

The defendant doctors were successful on an application for summary dismissal of the plaintiff doctor’s action for defamation with respect to letters written to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia about the plaintiff’s medical practices

Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Governance – Statutory provisions – Disciplinary proceedings – Defamation – Boards and tribunals – Absolute privilege – Qualified privilege Schut v. Magee, [2003] B.C.J. No. 102, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 20, 2003, Kirkpatrick J. The plaintiff doctor brought an action against the defendant doctors and members of the ...

Ms. Pritchard was terminated from employment with Sears Canada and filed a Human Rights complaint. The majority of the complaint was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Pritchard commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission’s refusal to deal with her complaint. During the course of the review Ms. Pritchard’s counsel requested a legal opinion that was provided to the commissioners by the Commission’s in-house counsel. The Commission argued that the opinion was privileged. The Divisional Court held that the opinion was not privileged. The decision of the three judge panel of the Divisional Court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the opinion was privileged.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review application – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – In-house legal opinion Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 215, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 29, 2003, Finlayson, Charron and Armstrong JJ.A. The issue raised in the appeal was whether a legal opinion prepared ...

Documents, specifically expert reports, created in the course of an investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.165 (the “Act”), because they were “advice or recommendations developed … for a public body”, and exempt pursuant to section 13 of the Act. The documents were not exempt from disclosure on the grounds they were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Definition – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – Expert reports – Legal advice privilege – Litigation privilege – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Delay College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2779, ...