The Appellant Police Officers unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, which had dismissed the Officers’ petitions for judicial review of a decision of the Respondent Commissioner. The Respondent Commissioner had rejected the Officers’ applications to quash Notices of Misconduct issued to the Officers.

23. March 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Commission of Inquiry – Investigations – Jurisdiction to issue a complaint – Police – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Fresh evidence – admissibility – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Procedural requirements and fairness Canada ...

The appellant, Pope & Talbot, was granted cutting rights to land in the Arrow Boundary Forest District. Logging was carried out by a subcontractor, who in turn retained a falling subcontractor to cut the trees. The falling subcontractor mistakenly clear cut an area in contravention of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia, R.S.B.C. 1996 (“the Code”). The District Manager found that the appellant, the contractor, and the falling subcontractor contravened the Code and imposed a penalty. The Court upheld that decision.

23. February 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Forest Appeals Commission – Penalties – Forest practices – Due diligence – test – Contracts – Subcontractors – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Pope & Talbot Ltd. v. British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2492, 2009 BCSC 1715, British Columbia Supreme ...

The Court granted an application for judicial review by a police constable who had been suspended without pay by the respondent police chief. The Court found that the respondent did not have the authority to suspend the applicant without pay, because the applicant had not been “sentenced to a term of imprisonment”, as required by section 89(6) of the Police Services Act, despite a period of pre-sentence custody.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Criminal record – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Trinaistich v. Crowell, [2009] O.J. No. 4830, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, November 13, 2009, F.R. Caputo, M.R. ...

The Appellant Dentist successfully appealed the Respondent Board’s finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct

22. December 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Dental Board – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Settlements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Correctness Chandrasegaram v. Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Board, [2009] N.J. ...

A woman (“Hudson”) who was denied a person with disabilities (“PWD”) designation within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 41 (the “Act”) by the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, succeeded in having that determination set aside and the matter remitted back to a newly constituted Panel

24. November 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal – Employment law – Benefits – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness Hudson v. British Columbia (Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal), [2009] ...

On appeal, the College of Opticians of British Columbia (the “College”) succeeded in obtaining an injunction prohibiting two contact lens companies (“Coastal/Clearly”) from selling contact lenses to members of the public without securing written prescriptions in advance. Coastal/Clearly were given six months to become compliant with the applicable regulation before the injunction would take effect.

24. November 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Opticians – Opticians – Public interest – Supervision – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Injunctions – Self-governing professions – Statutory provisions College of Opticians of British Columbia v. Coastal Contacts Inc., [2009] B.C.J. No. 2099, ...

A housing cooperative (“Lavender”) succeeded in quashing a decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”) which had held that Lavender’s One Member Rule discriminated against a widow on the basis of her marital and family status

24. November 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status – Housing co-operative – Membership – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Lavender Co-Operative Housing Association v. Ford, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2081, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 21, 2009, V. ...

The Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, which had denied the appellant pension benefits, following her estranged husband’s death in a work-related accident, on the basis that the appellant and her child were not “dependants”. The Court of Appeal found that the Commission had failed to apply the correct test with respect to whether the appellant and her child were “dependents”.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Dependant – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Interpretation of legislation – Evidence – Test Elgie v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2009] A.J. No. 899, Alberta Court of Appeal, ...

Three job applicants applied for judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, which had dismissed complaints of abuse of authority in assessments of merit in an internationally advertised appointment process by Service Canada. The Court allowed the application, finding that the evidence suggested that the Assessment Board abused its authority by basing its assessment on inadequate information and the Tribunal entirely overlooked strong evidence on that point. The Tribunal thereby failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness.

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Employment law – Competition for employment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Abuse of public authority Hammond v. Canada (Department of Human Resources and Social Development), [2009] F.C.J. No. 763, Federal ...

The Petitioner applied for judicial review of a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which had found that the Petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on the Respondent’s failure to fund prostate cancer screening tests. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in conflating the question of the Respondent’s bona fide and reasonable justification into its consideration as to whether the Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination and in applying an improper test to that analysis. The Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Government funding for screening tests – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation Armstrong v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health), [2009] B.C.J. No. 1279, British Columbia Supreme ...