Maximum penalty provisions in Section 162, Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c.418, are subject to the statutory interpretation presumption against retrospective operation of statutes. Imposition of the current maximum monetary penalty under this section is “punitive” in nature and cannot be imposed for violations of the Securities Act which occurred prior to the 2006 amendments which changed the maximum penalty. For such violations, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is that in force at the time.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Retrospective and retroactive operation Thow v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2009] B.C.J. No. 211, 2009 BCCA 46, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 12, ...

The Petitioner, Asquini, brought a judicial review application in respect of the decision made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). The WCAT had denied the Petitioner’s appeal of the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) decision to deny him a loss of earnings pension. The Petitioner argued that the WCAT decision should be quashed for several reasons, including an argument that the vice chair in the WCAT was biased and there were errors in interpreting WCB policies. The Petition was dismissed.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Pensions – Eligibility – Legislation – Constitutional issues – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Bias Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Asquini v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2009] B.C.J. No. 89, British Columbia Supreme ...

The Appellant Lienaux appealed a decision of the Respondent Barristers’ Society (the “Respondent”), which had found him guilty of conduct unbecoming of a barrister. The Appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal found the majority of the rulings of the Respondent were reasonable and the standard of review was reasonableness. Lienaux was successful on one ground of appeal as the Court of Appeal held the Respondent’s decision to prohibit him from representing himself was not reasonable.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Self-representation – Judicial review – Fresh evidence – admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation Lienaux v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, [2009] N.S.J. No. 32, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, ...

The Petitioner Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of B.C. (the “Province”) applied for leave to appeal the decision of an Arbitrator acting under the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55 (the “Act”) in respect of a dispute the Province had with the Respondent resort company (the “Respondent”). The Court denied the Province’s application for leave to appeal.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Government – Contract to provide park services – Terms of agreement – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Appeals – Leave to appeal – Discretion of court – Powers under legislation British Columbia v. Gibson Pass Resort Inc., [2009] B.C.J. No. 162, British ...

The Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board decision declining jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim made by an employee of the University of Saskatchewan against the University for harassment was quashed by the Court of Appeal and the matter referred back to the Board. It was incumbent on the Board to examine the grievance advanced by way of arbitration and determine whether and to what extent that claim was a claim for a workplace injury that, if established, would entitle the grievor to compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1. The Board needed to consider not only the fact that the grievor’s claim under the Act was denied, but the basis upon which it was denied. The question is whether the injury claimed falls within the jurisdiction of the Board, not whether the claimant was successful in proving the claim to the Board.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Jurisdiction – Labour law – Arbitration – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter University of Saskatchewan v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Saskatchewan, [2009] S.J. No. 76, 2009 SKCA 17, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, February 6, 2009, ...

Section 67(1), Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 380, which prohibits the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a rate for low income consumers different from that chargeable to other consumers for the same circumstances and conditions respecting electrical service, was found not to discriminate by adverse effect based on the listed categories of sex, race, national or ethnic origin, age and disability in section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the recognized analogous category of marital status. Poverty was not considered an analogous ground under section 15(1) Charter.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Poverty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Utility services – Electricity rates – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Boulter v. Nova Scotia Power Inc., [2009] N.S.J. No. 64, 2009 NSCA 17, Nova Scotia Court of ...

The application by Western Forest Products (“WFP”) and the Association of British Columbia Landowners for judicial review of a series of bylaws adopted by the Capital Regional District (“CRD”) was allowed where the court found that the voting on the bylaws did not take place in accordance with the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323 (the “Act”) and, consequently, the bylaws were illegal

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Timber licences – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial – Regional Districts – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Change of by-laws – Validity – Voting procedures – Cost sharing – Definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Western Forest Products Inc. ...

The City of Hamilton was successful in its motion to quash two applications for judicial review concerning the termination of three former employees where the court held that the public employees were governed by contract law and contract law displaced public law as the more appropriate forum in which the employees were required to seek a remedy, as per Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] S.C.J. No. 9

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Parallel action – Wrongful dismissal – Public law vs. Contract law – Judicial review application – Striking out – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Costs Redmond v. Hamilton (City), [2008] O.J. No. 5233, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 17, 2008, ...

The appeal by the Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority (the “Board”) was dismissed where the court found that there was no statutory authority in the Northwest Territories, express or implied, requiring that a candidate for trustee of a Catholic public denominational school board be Catholic

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – School boards – Composition – Compliance with legislation – Human rights complaints – Religion – Legislation – Constitutional issues Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority v. Euchner, [2008] N.W.T.J. No. 95, Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, December 12, 2008, C.A. Fraser C.J.N.W.T., C.M. Conrad and C. O’Brien ...

A taxi operator appealed the decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal which had found that he had discriminated against a disabled man by refusing to provide taxi service to him. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, and award costs against the Appellant. The court also rejected the Appellant’s allegation of bias on the part of the Tribunal member.

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Right to award costs – Judicial review – Bias – Test – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Sahota v. Scott, [2008] S.J. No. 836, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...