The applicant directors (the “Applicants”) of a venture capital corporation successfully applied for leave to appeal on issue of whether the fact that the Manitoba Securities Commission (the “Commission”) was named as a co-defendant in a class action suit with the Applicant was sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Commission, and if so, would it be appropriate to grant a stay of the proceedings before the Commission pending a disposition of the class action suit. The Applicants had an arguable case, and the nature of the objection to proceeding before the Commission was of general public interest because of the importance of impartiality and independence in courts and administrative tribunals.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Director of corporation – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Stay of proceedings – Standard of review – Correctness Curtis v. Manitoba Securities Commission, [2006] M.J. No. 1, Manitoba Court of Appeal, January 10, ...

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, ...

The court held that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal was without jurisdiction over a complaint arising from the exclusion of women members from the Men’s Lounge at the Marine Drive Golf Club as the Men’s Lounge was not an “accommodations, service or facility customarily available to the public”

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Private clubs – Customarily available to the public – Definition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Marine Drive Golf Club v. Buntain, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2181, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

An application for judicial review by the Applicant in respect of two discretionary conditions of the Applicant’s long-term offender order which were confirmed by the National Parole Board (“NPB”) was dismissed. The NPB’s decision to impose a condition that the Applicant take medication was correct and, even though such a condition offended section 7 of the Charter, it could be saved under section 1. The no contact condition was reasonable and was therefore not subject to judicial review.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – National Parole Board hearings – Discretionary conditions – Long-term offenders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Deacon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1827, Federal Court, November 4, 2005, Teitelbaum J. The Applicant brought an application for ...

The Court dismissed the Province’s petition for judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Province discriminated against the Respondents, Ms. Hutchinson and her father, Mr. Hutchinson, on the basis of physical disability and family status in the manner in which it was applying its Choices in Support for Independent Living (“CSIL”) policy which included a blanket prohibition against hiring family members. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established against the Province and upheld the Tribunal’s order of monetary compensation of $105,850 to Mr. Hutchinson for lost opportunity for employment.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Family members as care givers – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Damages British Columbia v. Hutchinson, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2270, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 12, 2005, Cullen ...

A Hearing Officer stayed a disciplinary hearing under the Ontario Police Services Act on the basis that the hearing would constitute an abuse of process after the accused police officer had been acquitted on criminal charges arising from the same conduct that triggered the hearing. This decision was quashed on judicial review as the court found that proceeding with the disciplinary hearing would not constitute an abuse of process.

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Criminal charges – Evidence – Hearings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Abuse of process – Test – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – Standard of review – Correctness Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Service v. Watson, [2005] O.J. No. 3525, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, August 18, ...

The Estate of Gordon Stiles (the “Estate”) was denied its application for leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the “Board”) which denied the Estate’s review of its earlier decision to grant Esprit Exploration Ltd. (“Esprit”) a licence to drill a well on the land adjoining the lands owned by the Estate

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Permits and licences – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Appeal process – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Stiles Estate v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2005] A.J. No. 1245, Alberta Court of Appeal, ...

When interpreting the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 and its Regulations, the standard of review of the General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, was correctness. The General Manager’s interpretation of the food service requirement, which permitted the sale of alcohol so long as the establishment was primarily engaged in the service of food during all hours of operation, was correct. There was sufficient evidence to support the General Manager’s conclusion that patrons of the Petitioner, 532871 B.C. Ltd., carrying on business as The Urban Well, were not consumers of food. The General Manager’s decision on the application of the law to the facts was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Liquor Licensing Board – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter 532871 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. The Urban Well) v. British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), [2005] B.C.J. No. 1821, British Columbia Court ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss the Applicant’s allegations of discrimination, but allowed her application with respect to an allegation of retaliation

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Employment law – Conditions of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Limitations of actions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Dubois v. Canada (Attorney ...

The Consumers’ Association of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. and the Manitoba Society of Seniors (the “Applicants”) applied for judicial review of an Order made by the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba (the “Board”) with respect to an ex parte Order of the Board that permitted Centra Gas Manitoba Inc. (“Centra”) to increase its natural gas rates by approximately 10% effective February 1, 2005 without any notice to or input from Centra’s customers. The court held that there was no evidence presented to the Board that supported the exceptional requirements necessary to justify of an ex parte hearing. The Board therefore should not have heard Centra’s interim application on an ex parte basis and the Applicants were entitled to an Order quashing the interim rate increase ordered by the Board following the ex parte hearing.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Rate increases – Appeals – Hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Ex parte orders – Evidence – Interpretation of legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Consumers’ Assn. of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. v. Manitoba (Public ...