The Province of New Brunswick (the “Employer”) appealed the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench quashing the interim decision of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (the “Board”) designating Teachers’ Assistants employed by the public schools as “essential employees”. In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Board’s interim decision was not patently unreasonable as the legislation at issue was subject to an interpretation that would allow for two possible conclusions, and the Board had the right to choose the interpretation it preferred.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Essential employees – Schools – Teachers’ assistants – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2745 v. New Brunswick (Board of ...

A pensioner (“McLean”) sought judicial review of decisions made by employees of the Ministry of Human Resources (the “Ministry”) regarding McLean’s entitlement to benefits. The application was dismissed as the court found it was brought prematurely, where McLean had failed to pursue the remedies available to him under the legislation at issue.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Premature – Jurisdiction of court – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Alternative remedies – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders McLean v. British Columbia (Minister of Human Resources), [2004] B.C.J. No. 428, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 5, 2004, Gerow J. McLean submitted to the court that he had ...

Ms. Neto successfully appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) that had determined that she was not capable of consenting to the administering of several medications to treat bipolar affective disorder

20. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Test – Right to refuse medical treatment – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Neto v. Klukach, [2004] O.J. No. 394, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 10, 2004, Day J. Ms. Neto is a ...

On appeal by two daughters of a decision of the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board directing them to consent to withholding medical treatment for their mother, the Court found that the Board had erred in law in its determination as to whether the daughters had complied with the principles for substitute decision making by withholding their consent. The Board also erred in law by ignoring the legislative purpose of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996. Finally, the Board assumed, in the absence of evidence, that the mother’s death would be prompt if there were no further recourse to intensive care.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Adult in need of protection – Withholding medical treatment – Substitute decision maker – Power of attorney – Scope of authority – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Scardoni v. Hawryluck, [2004] O.J. No. ...

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd (“ATCO”) successfully appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the “Board”) on the basis that the Board lacked the jurisdiction to allocate to customers some of the proceeds of the sale of assets formerly used for utility purposes

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Jurisdiction – Sale of assets – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2004] A.J. No. 45, Alberta Court of Appeal, January 27, 2004, ...

The application was for a judicial review of a decision of the Registrar refusing Ms. Moses’s registration as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act. The applicant’s judicial review application was struck as moot, since she had already registered pursuant to section 6(1)(f)of the Act. In determining the issue the court considered (1) registration pursuant to 6(1)(f) of the Act provided the applicant with all of the same benefits as registration pursuant to 6(1)(a) of the Act; (2) the judicial review was not an efficient use of scarce judicial resources; and (3) in the absence of a dispute having an effect on the rights of parties a Court decision would be an intrusion on the role of the legislative branch of the government.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Registration as an Indian – Judicial review application – Striking out – Mootness – Compliance with legislation Moses v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1835, Federal Court, December 3, 2003, Hargrave, Prothonotary Ms. Moses was confirmed as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act. She filed an application ...

An inmate appealed a denial of family visits on the basis that he had refused to participate in a sex offender program. The Court concluded that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, R.S.C. 1992, c.20 (the “Act”) did not appear reasonable. The Act provided that Mr. Edwards had a right to family visits subject only to reasonable limits. The court concluded the Commissioner erred when she decided that it was a “reasonable limit” to require that Mr. Edwards successfully complete the sex offender assessment and consequently the inmate’s application was granted. The matter was sent back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Visiting rights – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Prison Commissioner – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1887, Federal Court, December 10, 2003, Von Finckenstein Mr. Edwards was a federal inmate at Joyceville Institution. He was serving a ...

The Appellant provincial municipal assessor (“Assessor”) was granted leave to appeal pursuant to section 63 of the Municipal Assessment Act on the question of whether the municipal board (“Municipal Board”) committed an error of law by determining that the entire real property assessment roll for the Respondent Seagram Company (“Seagram”) was open for review when Seagram appealed its 1999 amended assessment. The success on the appeal was split between the Respondent and the Appellant, with the court finding that the Municipal Board committed an error of law by determining that the real property assessment for one parcel of the Seagram land was open for review because Seagram had no right of appeal in regard to the 1999 amended taxes for that parcel of land, and that the Municipal Board did not commit an error of law by determining that the entire real property assessment for the second parcel of land was open for review when Seagram appealed its 1999 supplementary taxes for roll no. 199700. The matter was referred back to the Municipal Board for further consideration.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Property assessment – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Right of appeal – Standard of review – Correctness Manitoba (Provincial Municipal Assessor) v. Seagram Co., [2003] M.J. No. 393, Manitoba Court of Appeal, November 3, 2003, Huband, Philp, Twaddle, Hamilton and Freedman JJ.A. Seagram had owned ...

Ultimate Shiatsu’s petition seeking to quash the City of Coquitlam’s decision to refuse it a business licence was dismissed. The City’s petition seeking a declaration that Ultimate Shiatsu was in breach of the City’s Trades Licensing Bylaw No. 49, 1972, as amended, was allowed.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Compliance with legislation – Renewal of business licence – Illegal activities – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Municipal councils – Hearsay evidence – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Coquitlam (City) v. 517011 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. Ultimate Shiatsu), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2682, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

The Respondent Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (the “Ministry”) terminated the funding and directed another agency to take over the programs of the Applicant, St. Catharines Association for Community Living (“SCACL”), a non-profit charitable organization providing services to disabled persons. SCACL’s application for judicial review of this decision was allowed, and the Ministry’s decision to terminate the funding, seize the property, and authorize a third party to operate the agency was quashed as illegal. The standard of review was that the decision was patently unreasonable. Although the Minister was entitled to terminate a contractual relationship where there has been a fundamental breach, there was no evidence of an inability by SCACL to protect its clients, there was no evidence of any weighing of considerations pertinent to the objects of the administration. The decision was therefore patently unreasonable.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Charitable organizations – Governance and funding – Powers of government – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Byl (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3436, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ...