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, ...

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 ...

A teacher (“Mitchell”) was successful in her appeal from a decision of the Council of the British Columbia College of Teachers (the “College”) cancelling her certificate of qualification and terminating her membership in the College. The court found that the College failed to give any analysis or consideration to many mitigating factors specific to this case resulting in an unreasonable decision with respect to penalty.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Public interest – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mitchell v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2003] B.C.J. No. 3056, British Columbia Supreme Court. October 27, ...

The appellant teacher unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Hearing Panel of the disciplinary committee of the British Columbia College of Teachers (“BCCT”) finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming on the grounds that he made discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals in a number of published writings. The appellant also unsuccessfully appealed the penalty of the one-month suspension of his teaching certificate.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression Kempling v. British Columbia College ...

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. ...

On judicial review, the applicant, Siksika Nation (“Siksika”), sought to quash the decision of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (the “Board”) granting a liquor licence to the respondent, Walji Holdings Limited (“Walji”) on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and breached the principles of natural justice. The Court, in light of the applicable law and the strict standard of review, found that the decision to grant the licence was not patently unreasonable and therefore did not warrant judicial intervention. However, the Court did note that the Alberta gaming and liquor legislation was deficient in failing to enumerate public interest as a consideration in granting licences but, being constrained by the wording of the legislation, had to dismiss the application for judicial review.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Powers under legislation – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Siksika Nation v. Walji ...

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 ...

A teacher with the Scarborough Board of Education (“Layzell”) unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) regarding complaints she had filed alleging discrimination and reprisal based on her sex and disability as an individual afflicted by multiple sclerosis

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Teachers – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Procedural requirements and fairness Layzell v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 5448, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, January ...

Two probationary officers in the Saskatoon Police Service were dismissed by the Chief of Police as being unsuitable for police service after they committed plagiarism while at Police College. Their Union sought to grieve the dismissals under the collective bargaining agreement. The Employer under the collective agreement, the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners, took the position that it lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the grievances because they dealt with discipline issues rather than employer-employee issues. A board of arbitration found the grievances to be arbitrable, and the Chief of Police successfully appealed. The issue on appeal was whether the arbitration board had correctly found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievances.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Penalties and suspensions – Plagiarism at police college – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear disciplinary grievances – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon (City) Police Force v. Saskatoon (Police Commission), ...

A physician (“Dr. Young”) successfully appealed both the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (the “College”) in which he was found guilty of unbecoming, improper, unprofessional or discreditable conduct and the associated penalty

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Reliability – Witnesses – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Young v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [2004] S.J. No. 21, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 13, 2004, Koch J. Dr. Young was ...