The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of an employer (“BC Hydro”) and reinstated the decision of the Human Rights Commission (“HRC”) dismissing, at a preliminary stage, the complaint of an employee (“Lee”). The court held that the reviewing judge erred in failing to give due deference to the HRC by substituting her view of the evidence for the view of the HRC.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Appointment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Evidence Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1851, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 10, 2004, Finch C.J.B.C., Prowse and Donald JJ.A. Lee is ...

A former licensed member (“Padovan”) of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors (the “Association”) brought an action against the Association claiming damages resulting from disciplinary proceedings instituted against him by the Association. The Association was successful in a motion for summary judgment where the court found that Padovan had not satisfied even the modest preliminary evidentiary burden to establish bias, harassment, malice or mala fides on the part of the Association.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Land Surveyors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – No reasonable cause of action – Bias – Evidence Padovan v. Assn. of Ontario Land Surveyors, [2004] O.J. No. 2921, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 7, 2004, Stach J. Padovan was the subject of ...

The court held that the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses (the “Council”) was unreasonable in its approach to the assessment of the Respondent’s credibility and in its application of the standard of proof, holding that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to safely sustain two of the complaints against the Appellant Nurse. However, the Council’s decision that the Nurse failed to maintain the ethical standards of practice of the profession was rationally supported by the evidence and it was not shown to be unreasonable.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Gillis v. Council for Licensed Practical Nurses, [2004] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 20, 2004, ...

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. ...

An Indian (“Pogson”) within the meaning of the Indian Act successfully applied for a reference under s.74(1) of the Firearms Act (the “Act”) to overturn the decision of a delegate of the Chief Firearms Officer who had rejected her application for a licence to possess and acquire non restricted firearms.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Firearms – licences – Infringement on Aboriginal rights – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Firearms Officer – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Judicial notice Pogson v. Alberta (Chief Firearms Officer), [2004] A.J. No. 248, Alberta Provincial Court, March 1, 2004, Demetrick Prov. ...

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 Province of New Brunswick (the “Employer”) appealed the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench quashing the interim decision of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (the “Board”) designating Teachers’ Assistants employed by the public schools as “essential employees”. In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Board’s interim decision was not patently unreasonable as the legislation at issue was subject to an interpretation that would allow for two possible conclusions, and the Board had the right to choose the interpretation it preferred.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Essential employees – Schools – Teachers’ assistants – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2745 v. New Brunswick (Board of ...

The Lunenburg County District School Board (the “School Board”) appealed the decision of the Supreme Court quashing a decision by the Board of Appeal dismissing a teacher (“Haché”) charged with sexual offences against his students. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal holding that the evidence relied on by the Board of Appeal was not capable of supporting the evidence of the complainants.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – School boards – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Witnesses Haché v. Lunenburg County District School Board, [2004] N.S.J. No. 120, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, March 30, 2004, Glube C.J.N.S., Freeman and Cromwell JJ.A. In 1995, the School Board ...

This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in a judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35 (“PSSRA”). The issue was whether the Adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness. The Trial Division Judge found no breach of procedural fairness and dismissed the judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and quashed the decision of the Adjudicator.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Adjudication – Evidence Gale v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2004] F.C.J. No. 186, Federal Court of Appeal, January 12, 2004, Strayer, Rothstein and Sharlow JJ.A. Mr. Gale was a correctional officer at a Saskatchewan Penitentiary. A female colleague made a complaint ...

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. ...