The court declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...

Fryingpan, who was allegedly assaulted by a police officer, successfully applied to quash the decision of the Edmonton Police Commission (the “Commission”) to hold his complaint about the officer’s conduct in abeyance and for a direction that the complaint be reviewed pursuant to s.46(3) of the Police Act R.S.A. 2000,CP-17

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Police Complaint Commissioner – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Bias – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Fryingpan v. Edmonton (City) Police Commissions, [2004] A.J. No. 225, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2004, Murray J. In October 2002, Fryingpan’s mother filed a complaint ...

The appeal by an employer (“Vantage”) from a decision of the Human Rights Panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission was dismissed where the court found that the evidence considered by the Panel clearly established that Vantage had not given consideration to accommodation of the physical limitations of the complainant (“Marcil”). The court also upheld the Panel’s decision to award $28,000 as compensation for lost employment income.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Vantage Contracting Inc. v. Marcil, [2004] A.J. No. 368, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 29, 2004, ...

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. ...

The Ontario Nurses’ Association (the “Association”), representing a nurse who was terminated for innocent absenteeism due to disability (“Tilley”), successfully applied for judicial review of a decision of a Board of Arbitration which had held that the hospital’s failure to pay severance to Tilley did not violate s.15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”)

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Severance pay – Human rights complaints – Disability – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Ontario Nurses’ Assn. v. Mount Sinai Hospital, [2004] O.J. No. 162, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional ...

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, ...

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 ...

The appeal by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) from a preliminary decision of the Board of Inquiry (the “Board”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, applying a standard of review of correctness, held that the Board did not err in determining that the trial judge, in a parallel civil action for wrongful dismissal commenced by the complainant, had jurisdiction to deal with allegations of discrimination.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Employment law – Wrongful dismissal – Parallel action – Jurisdiction of court to hear human rights complaint – Estoppel and res judicata – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Kaiser v. Dural, a division of Multibond Inc., [2003] N.S.J. No. 418, Nova Scotia Court ...

The appeal of the College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (the “College”) from the decision of the Health Disciplines Board (the “Board”) reversing a decision of the College Conduct and Competency Committee (the “Committee”) regarding the conduct of a member (“Zieniewicz”) was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the Committee failed to properly consider all evidence at the hearing of Zieniewicz and that the Board properly applied the standard of review in reversing the Committee’s decision.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Hearing Aid Practitioners – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Supervision of trainee – Delegated supervision – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness College of Hearing Aid Practitioners of Alberta (Council of) v. Zieniewicz, [2003] A.J. ...