The Ontario Statutory Benefits Tribunal (“SBT “)has jurisdiction to consider the Ontario Human Rights Code in determining whether the Appellants were eligible for support pursuant to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (“ODSPA”). Statutory tribunals empowered to decide questions of law are presumed to have the power to look beyond their enabling statutes in order to apply the whole law properly to a matter before them. The matter was remitted to the SBT so it could rule on the applicability of section 5(2) of the ODSPA.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Statutory Benefits Tribunal – Statutory powers – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal to hear a complaint under the Human Rights Code – Compliance with legislation Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), [2006] S.C.J. No. 14, Supreme Court of Canada, April 21, ...

The decision of the Respondent Deputy Minister of Health to terminate Pharmacy Participation Agreements made between PharmaCare and the Petitioner pharmacies was the exercise of a statutory power of decision; it did not arise from the common law powers that the Crown enjoys as a natural person. The Petitioners were entitled to seek judicial review of the decision under the British Columbia Judicial Review Procedure Act. The duty of procedural fairness owed to the Petitioners was not met by the Respondent. Certiorari was granted, the decision to terminate the Pharmacy Participation Agreements was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Policies – Statutory provisions – Pharmacy Participation Agreements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Legislation – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Certiorari Delivery Drugs Ltd. (c.o.b. Gastown Pharmacy) v. British ...

The Court quashed a policy decision of the Workers Compensation Board (“WCB”) Board of Directors (“BOD”) on the ground that it made a patently unreasonable interpretation of the word “recurrence” to include deterioration

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Recurrence vs. deterioration – Validity and application of policies – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Interpretation of legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Cowburn v. British Columbia (Worker’s Compensation Board), [2006] B.C.J. No. 1020, British Columbia ...

The Court held that the Complainant had no standing to appeal the decision of an adjudicator appointed by the Police Complaints Commissioner to conduct a public hearing into the conduct of a police officer relating to the death of the Complainant’s brother

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Police – Police Complaint Commissioner – Adjudication – Procedural fairness – Public hearings – Conduct of hearings – Rules of evidence – Judicial review – Appeals – Parties – Standing – Compliance with legislation Berg v. British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner), [2006] B.C.J. No. 1027, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 9, 2006, Finch ...

A World War II veteran who fell twice from a Bren gun carrier during active service (“Bremner”), succeeded on his application for judicial review of a decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (the “Board”) which had determined that his degenerative disc disease and lower back pain was not attributable to his war service, and that he was not entitled to a pension in respect of that injury

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Pensions – Eligibility – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Bremner v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.C.J. No 122, Federal Court, January 30, 2006, Strayer D.J. When Bremner enlisted, he reported no ...

VIA Rail succeeded in appealing a finding of the Canadian Transport Agency (the “Agency”) that the VIA Rail meal distribution policy constituted an undue obstacle to the mobility of a passenger who used an electric wheelchair (“Sikand”)

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Transportation Agency – Obstacle to the mobility of a passenger – Discrimination – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Statutory interpretation – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Via Rail Canada Inc. v. Canada (Canadian Transportation ...

The Court upheld the decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which found that the Medical Officer of Health went beyond the scope of his statutory authority under s. 13 of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act in making Orders prohibiting smoking or the holding of lighted tobacco in small and privately owned businesses in the hospitality industry

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Health Services Appeal and Review Board), [2006] O.J. No. 52, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court, January 4, 2006, D.R. Aston, S.E. Greer and K.E. ...

The Appellant successfully appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was not capable of making decisions concerning admission to a care facility within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, (the “HCCA”). The test is not whether the Appellant failed to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of the decision to return home but whether or not he was unable to do so. There was no analysis or finding by the Board as to whether the Appellant had the cognitive ability to understand the relevant information as well as to appreciate the consequence of making (or not making) the decision to enter the care facility. Therefore there was no basis upon which the Board could reasonably find that the presumption of the Appellant’s capacity had been displaced and, as such, the Board’s decision ought to be set aside. The Appellant was further awarded costs in the amount of $24,914. Although the proceedings were not adversarial in the usual sense and the evaluators were acting in good faith and in what they believed were the Appellant’s best interests, the hospital and health practitioners had a great deal of power in the assessment process and the appeal was the Appellant’s only remedy to challenge the incapacity finding. Therefore, there was no reason the Appellant should not have his costs.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Capacity – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Costs Saunders v. Bridgeport Hospital, [2005] O.J. No. 5531, Ontario Court of Justice, December 14, 2005, N.J. Spies J. ...

A post-operative male–to-female transsexual (“Nixon”) appealed from a decision on judicial review which found that she was not discriminated against when the Vancouver Rape Relief Society (“Society”) refused to allow her to volunteer as a peer counsellor with their organization

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2647, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 7, 2005, Finch C.J.B.C., Southin and Saunders JJ.A. Nixon was born a male but underwent ...

The Court allowed an appeal of a company that had sought redress from the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal after it had lost considerable money over the years after being assigned an incorrect classification under the Act. The WCB and WCAT had erred in concluding that they did not have the discretion to contemplate a calculation of the Appellant’s over-assessment to a date earlier than the year in which the correction was made.

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Industry classification – Assessment – Statutory interpretation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Thermo Dynamics Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2005] N.S.J. No 475, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, November 23, 2005, E.A. Roscoe, ...