A physician (“Dr. Cimolai”) successfully appealed the decision of a chambers judge dismissing his application for a judicial review of a decision of the Board of Directors of Children’s and Women’s Health Centre which had terminated his hospital privileges on the basis of the finding of harassment. The chambers judge had ruled that the doctor had available to him an “adequate alternative remedy” in the form of an appeal to the Hospital Appeal Board, and that for this reason he was not entitled to judicial review. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the findings of the chambers judge.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Judicial review – Procedural fairness – Public body – Definition – Remedies – Certiorari Cimolai v. Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1313, British Columbia Court of Appeal, June 6, 2003, Southin, Newbury and Hall JJ.A. The Court of Appeal considered the question ...

Poulin had brought an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination that a civil claim was barred pursuant to s. 68(1) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Board and Poulin sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal held that the Board acted within its jurisdiction. In the result, the judicial review application was dismissed.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Worker – Definition – Liability of sole director of a corporation – Statutory provisions – Privative clauses – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Evidence Poulin v. Manitoba (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2003] M.J. No. 122, Manitoba Court of Appeal, April 23, 2003, ...

Although job related information pertaining to RCMP officers: (a) the list of historical postings, their status and date, (b) the list of ranks and the dates they achieved those ranks, (c) their years of service, and (d) their anniversary date of service, constituted “personal information” as defined under s.3 of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.-P-21, it should nonetheless be disclosed because it fell within the “position or functions of the individual exception” under s.3(j). The information did not reveal anything about the competence or divulge any personal opinion given outside the course of employment, but rather provided information relevant to understanding the functions performed by the officers.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Exceptions – Federal employees – Personal information – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2003] S.C.J. No. 7, Supreme Court of Canada, March 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and ...

On appeal, a Human Rights complainant failed to establish that an adjudicator under the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14, erred in failing to find discrimination on the basis of disability or that the Trial Division judge erred on appeal. The fact that her employer considered her prior use of sick leave in determining which of two employees should be awarded the position of “lead hand” porter did not amount to discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability as the complainant’s absences from work did form evidence of a pattern of illness or injury which would indicate that degree of permanence or impairment necessary to prove disability.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Evans v. Health Care Corporation of St. John’s, [2003] N.J. No. 61, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Court of Appeal, March 6, 2003, Cameron and Welsh JJ.A. and Russell J. (ex officio) The complainant hospital ...

Documents, specifically expert reports, created in the course of an investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.165 (the “Act”), because they were “advice or recommendations developed … for a public body”, and exempt pursuant to section 13 of the Act. The documents were not exempt from disclosure on the grounds they were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Definition – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – Expert reports – Legal advice privilege – Litigation privilege – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Delay College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2779, ...

Manitoba was unsuccessful in its appeal of a decision allowing a Statement of Claim filed by one of its employees (“Desrivieres”) to stand. The action commenced by Desrivieres sought entitlement to disability benefits under the government employee plan. The court held that the dispute resolution mechanism in this Plan did not oust the jurisdiction of the court.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Benefit plans – Dispute resolution schemes – Jurisdiction – Final and binding – Definition – Adjudication – Jurisdiction of court – Labour law – Collective agreements Desrivieres v. Manitoba, [2002] M.J. No. 449, Manitoba Court of Appeal, November 15, 2002, Scott C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton JJ.A. This case involved the issue of whether ...

A journalist made a request under the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, R.S.Q., c. A-2.1 (the “Act”) for access to a document concerning the expenses of Members of the National Assembly which described the Member’s total payroll and expenses for employing staff and paying for professional services. The Commission d’accès à l’information (the “Commissioner”) refused disclosure of the information under ss. 34 and 57 of the Act; finding that the requested document had been prepared “for” a Member and could not be disclosed under s. 34 without the Member’s consent and that the Member could not be considered to constitute a public body within the meaning of s. 57.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Access to information – Production of records – Public body – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Macdonell v. Quebec (Commission d’accès à l’information), [2002] S.C.J. No. 71, Supreme Court of Canada, November 1, 2002, McLachlin C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. A journalist ...

On appeal to the court for a judicial review of an Appeal Commission decision under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. W200, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Commission’s decision not to read in words to section 1(3) and to decline to pierce the corporate veil was not patently unreasonable.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Worker – definition – Piercing corporate veil – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Poulin v. Manitoba (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2002] M.J. No. 341, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, August 13, 2002, McKelvey J. The Applicant was the sole shareholder, director and president of NL Poulin Ltd. The ...

The Yukon Medical Council (the “Council”) was successful in its appeal from a decision holding it to be “an agent of the government of the Yukon” and, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Privacy Commissioner. The Court of Appeal held that the Council was free from interference or control by the Yukon government in the exercise of its powers and, therefore, could not be said to be a “public body” within the meaning of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.Y. 1995, c. 1.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Privacy Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Public body – Definition – Physicians and surgeons – Governance Yukon Medical Council v. Yukon (Information and Privacy Commission), [2002] Y.J. No. 82, Yukon Territory Court of Appeal, August 20, 2002, Finch C.J.Y.T., Donald and Low JJ.A. The Council appealed the ...

O’Hara’s application for a judicial review of a decision of the B.C. Human Rights Commission dismissing his complaint was itself dismissed as the Court held that O’Hara could not establish that the Commission’s decision was patently unreasonable or that the investigative process was procedurally unfair

28. May 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Disability – Judicial review application – Boards and Tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Patently unreasonable decision – Continuing contravention – Definition O’Hara v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2002] B.C.J. No. 887, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 16, 2002, Quijano J. O’Hara described himself as disabled from a ...