The Court overturned the decision of a Provincial Court Judge who had reversed the decision of a Firearms Officer and directed that the Respondent be given a licence to possess and acquire firearms

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Firearms Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Judicial notice – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Chief Firearms Officer for the Province of Alberta) v. Pogson, [2005] A.J. No. 281, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 14, 2005, Slatter J. The Respondent had applied for a firearms ...

The Court dismissed this application by a journalist and his employer, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for judicial review of a decision of the Respondent’s Board of Inquiry which had denied the Applicants access to the Board’s hearings into the fires aboard the HMCS Chicoutimi

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – National defence – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Media access to hearings – Judicial review – Quasi-judicial tribunals – In camera hearings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Discretion of delegated authority – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Gordon v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), [2005] ...

The Applicant’s application to declare the Respondent City’s noise bylaw invalid on constitutional grounds was dismissed. With respect to the application for judicial review, the court held that the City’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s business licence was unimpeachable on a standard of correctness as the licensing inspector had just and reasonable grounds for denying the Applicant its business licence.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Rules and by-laws – Charter of Rights – Validity of noise by-law – Permits and licences – Renewal of business licence – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness 1022049 Alberta Ltd. v. Medicine Hat (City), [2005] A.J. No. 320, Alberta Court of Queen’s ...

An individual (“Conway”) held in mental health facilities after being found not guilty of a criminal offence by reason of insanity was successful in his appeal from the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) that he was not capable of contenting to treatment with psychotropic medications

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Substitute decision maker – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Conway v. Jacques, [2005] O.J. No. 400, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 4, 2005, M.K. Fuerst J. ...

An employer’s appeal of a decision of the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal (“WCAT”) was dismissed when the court found there was evidence to support the WCAT’s conclusion that an intense meeting with a supervisor was a “traumatic event” such that the worker’s subsequent stress condition was an “accident” within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Accident – Definition – Traumatic event – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton-Victoria v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2005] N.S.J. No. 75, Nova Scotia Court ...

The court found that the Minister of Learning had acted outside his jurisdiction in refusing to refer two notices of appeal from the Appellants, relating to their teaching positions, to a Board of Reference

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Employment contracts – Appeal process – Ministerial powers – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Statutory powers – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Mandamus Coulthard v. Alberta (Minister of Learning), [2004] A.J. No. 1586, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 2, 2004, Moreau J. The two ...

The court dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court which had held that the Respondent Ontario Energy Board’s Gas Distribution Access Rule came within the Board’s jurisdiction and that the Board had followed the process required by its enabling Act in issuing the Rule

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Natural resources – Natural gas – Distribution – Powers under legislation – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Ontario (Energy Board), [2005] O.J. No. 33, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, M.A. Catzman, D.H. ...

The British Columbia Human Rights Code creates “personal” rights and such rights abate on the death of the person whose human rights have allegedly been breached. The Tribunal therefore did not have statutory jurisdiction to hear matters in such circumstances.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Death of complainant – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia v. Goodwin, [2005] B.C.J. No. 193, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 4, 2005, Cohen J. The Petitioner, the Province of British Columbia (the “Province”), sought ...

An employee’s claim against her former employer under the Ontario Pay Equity Act was barred by virtue of the release and settlement executed by the employee upon her termination

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Settlements – Releases – Validity – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Bucyrus Blades of Canada Ltd. v. McKinley, [2005] O.J. No. 231, Ontario Superior Court ...

Applications for judicial review were brought on three issues: (1) is the Copyright Act section imposing levies on recordable media using for copying music constitutional or is this set of levies actually a system of taxation? (2) is the zero-rating program, under which certain groups of purchasers of recordable media are excused from paying the private copying levies permissible, and should it be taken into account when the Canadian Private Copying Collective (“CPCC”) sets levies? and (3) are MP3 players and/or their embedded memory properly subject to levies under the Act? The Court of Appeal dismissed the first two applications for judicial review and allowed the third, finding that the Act did not contain authority for the imposition of levies on MP3 player embedded memory

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Intellectual property – Copyright – Levies and taxes – Recorded music – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Copyright Board – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Canada (Canadian Private Copying Collective) v. Canadian Storage Media Alliance, [2004] F.C.J. No 2115, Federal Court of Appeal, December ...