The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (the “AOCP”) was unsuccessful in its appeal of decisions made by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had a statutory authority to “stand in the shoes” of the Marketing Commission and was entitled, on a review of a Commission decision, to establish specific pricing formulas and to order the Commission to amend its regulation to implement such pricing formulas.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Assn. of Ontario Chicken Processors v. Ontario (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal), [2003] O.N. No. 330, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 31, 2003, Blair, Carnwath and J. ...

An employee of the Health Care Corporation of St. John’s was unsuccessful in her application to set aside the decision of the Human Rights Commission not to refer her complaint to a board of inquiry. The Court held that the Commission exercised its administrative screening function in a reasonable manner. The legislative scheme in the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14 required the Court to show considerable deference to a decision of the Human Rights Commission. While it may have been preferable for the Commission to have provided fuller reasons, it was under no statutory obligation to do so. The reasons given by the Commission adequately indicated to the employee that, following a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, her complaint did not meet the Commission’s threshold level for referring the matter to a board of inquiry.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Evidence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness Spurrell v. Newfoundland (Human Rights Commission), [2003] N.J. No. 53, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, February 25, 2003, Adams J. An employee of ...

The Health Professions Appeal Board (the “Board”) conceded it had exceeded its jurisdiction by making findings of gross criminal misconduct against a physician and relying on materials which were never disclosed to the physician or his counsel. The Board agreed that its decision should be quashed but submitted that the matter should be remitted back for a new review before a differently constituted panel of the Board. The Court of Appeal refused to remit the matter back to the Board, and found that there were exceptional circumstances (the interest of the public in the matter was remote and the delay was serious) which warranted the exercise of its discretion to refuse to remit.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Discretion of court – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Tribunal decisions – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Evidence – Delay – Public interest Rathé v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), [2002] O.J. No. 4787, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 6, 2002, Blair, ...

The Commercial Appeals Commission, upholding a decision of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia, has a duty to give independent consideration to an appropriate penalty and reasons for imposing that penalty on a hearing de novo, even in the absence of a submission on penalty

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Real estate agents – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Commercial Appeals Commission – Hearing de novo – Duty to consider penalties Wong v. Real Estate Council of British Columbia, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2786, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 13, 2002, Ryan, Mackenzie and Thackray JJ.A. The Real ...

On appeal from a decision of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”) involving s. 43(4) of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, it was held that the CRTC did not err in law, exceed its jurisdiction or improperly exercise its discretion in rendering its decision with respect to the terms and conditions sought to be imposed by the city of Vancouver on the Respondent, Ledcor Industries Ltd., which was seeking access to the municipality’s roadways to install fibre optic lines

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission – Jurisdiction – Municipalities – Power to enact by-laws Federation of Canadian Municipalities v. AT & T Canada Corp., [2002] F.C.J. No. 1777, Federal Court of Appeal, December 17, 2002, Létourneau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A. This was an appeal from a decision of ...

A political party contesting the civic election and an elected member of the Vancouver City Council applied for judicial review of a decision of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for the City of Vancouver, involving what is required for a person to be able to vote in the Vancouver civic election if they are not pre-registered or on the voters list on Election Day. The court held that a liberal interpretation ought to be given to statutes that deal with exercising the right to vote. The decision of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer was held to be wrong.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Elections – Right to vote – Documentation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Correctness Coalition of Progressive Electors v. Vancouver (Deputy Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2939, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 13, 2002, Powers, J. This was an application for judicial review of a ...

A customer of Airgas Canada Inc. complained that an employee of Airgas, Mr. Fuggle, had placed graffiti at their premises. As a result of the complaint Mr. Fuggle was dismissed by Airgas. Mr. Fuggle submitted a claim to the Director of Employment Standards requesting a determination that he had been dismissed without cause. The Director of Employment Standards concluded that Airgas had just cause to terminate Mr. Fuggle’s employment. Mr. Fuggle’s appeal to the Employment Standards Tribunal was dismissed. Prior to receiving this decision Mr. Fuggle commenced an action in the Supreme Court alleging that he was wrongfully dismissed. Airgas applied pursuant to rule 18A of the Rules of Court for an Order that the claim be dismissed on the basis that there had already been a final determination of the issues between the parties under the Employment Standards Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 113 (“Standards Act”). In dismissing the application the Court exercised its discretion to refuse to apply estoppel.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Employment standards – Termination of employment – Just cause – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Issue estoppel – Discretion of court Fuggle v. Airgas Canada Inc., [2002] B.C.J. No. 2800, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 11, 2002, Burnyeat J. Airgas Canada Inc. applied to the court pursuant to Rule 18A for an order ...