The Workers’ Compensation Commission was unsuccessful in appealing a decision of the Trial Division which had overturned a decision of one of the Commission’s internal review specialists relating to whether or not the Commission was entitled to maintain a subrogated action. The Court of Appeal found that the decision of the internal review specialist was patently unreasonable as it resulted from an inappropriate approach to statutory interpretation.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Subrogated actions – Administrative decisions – Statutory provisions – Use – Definition – Statutory interpretation vs. judicial interpretation – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Warford v. Weir’s Construction Ltd., [2003] N.J. No. 178, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Court of Appeal, July 17, 2003, Cameron, ...

Gill was successful in having the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the B.C. Securities Commission that the newly formed CDNX stock exchange had jurisdiction to discipline Gill for alleged breaches of the rules of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a predecessor to the CDNX

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Compliance with rules and by-laws – Jurisdiction – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Restructuring of stock exchanges – Survival of contracts – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Gill v. Canadian Venture Exchange Inc., [2003] B.C.J. No. 1767, British Columbia Court ...

An automotive sales and service business (“White Bear”) went into receivership and several of the company’s terminated employees filed complaints with the Labour Services offices of the Government of the Northwest Territories. The employees claimed wages owed and related benefits. An officer of the Labour Standards Board (the “Board”) examined their claims and issued certificates determining the amounts owing and declared that the employees were entitled to wage claims from the officers and directors of White Bear, pursuant to section 62 of the Labour Standards Act. The directors of White Bear appealed the ruling. The Board confirmed the certificates of the officer. The directors then unsuccessfully appealed those confirmations to the Northwest Territories Supreme Court.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour Relations Board – Employment standards – Termination of employment – Termination package – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Buist v. Northwest Territories (Labour Standards Board), [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 30, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, May 30, 2003, O’Connor J. The Appellants ...

An aviation company operating tourist flights (“Delco”) was charged with (i) landing or taking off an aircraft in a built-up area of a city or town without authorization, and (ii) the use of Class F Special Use Restricted Airspace. The Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal held that the two sets of charges were founded upon the same acts and that, due to the legal nexus between the counts, Delco had been placed in a position of double jeopardy. The Appeal Panel stayed two of the charges. The Ministry appealed to the Federal Court who held that a legal double jeopardy only exists if there are no additional and distinguishing elements between two charges. Although arising from the same transaction, the Act created separate and distinct offences as a “built up area” is not necessarily “Class F Airspace” and vice versa. The decision of the Appeal Panel was quashed and the decision of the Tribunal member was reinstated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civil Aviation Tribunal – Penalties – Double jeopardy – Kienapple rule – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Minister of Transport) v. Delco Aviation Ltd., [2002] F.C.J. No. 938, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 12, 2003, Blanchard ...

Devlin successfully appealed the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which upheld a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspending Devlin’s driver’s licence pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 for medical reasons.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Medical condition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical Advisory Committee – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Devlin v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2003] O.J. No. 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 26, 2003, Pitt J. Devlin had experienced a single ...

Owen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the offence of second degree murder committed in 1978 while he was in a psychotic state induced by drug abuse. He was then detained in various mental health institutions and was gradually released into the community. However, he began to commit violent offences upon release. In 2000, the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), concluded that Owen continued to constitute a significant danger to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. At the Court of Appeal, the Crown wished to tender fresh Affidavit evidence alleging that, since the date of the Board hearing, Owen had punched another patient, threatened to kill another patient, and was found in the possession of prohibited drugs. The Court of Appeal declined to admit this fresh evidence, and proceeded to review the Board’s Order based on evidence available at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Board’s Order as unreasonable and made a direction that Owen be absolutely discharged. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the Board.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Detention – Danger to public – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. Owen, [2002] S.C.J. No. 31, Supreme Court of Canada, June 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, ...

The Respondent (“Starson”) was admitted to hospital after being found not criminally responsible for making death threats, whereupon the Ontario Review Board ordered his detention for 12 months. At that time, Starson refused medical treatment proposed by his psychiatrist for his bipolar disorder. The Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario (the “Board”) held that Starson lacked the capacity to refuse treatment. The Ontario Superior Court overturned the finding of incapacity and the Court of Appeal upheld this finding. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board misapplied the statutory test for capacity and improperly allowed its own conception of Starson’s best interests to influence its finding. The Board’s finding of incapacity could not be upheld.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Adult in need of protection – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Right to refuse medical treatment – Capacity – Test – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Starson v. Swayze, [2003] S.C.J. No. 33, Supreme Court of Canada, June ...

An employee (“Baxandall”) of R.J.V. Gas Field Services Ltd., resigned his employment and went into the same business as his former employer, the manufacturer of polyurethane panels. R.J.V. moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Baxandall from soliciting or selling to the customers of R.J.V., and the application was granted by the chambers judge. At a later hearing, the chambers judge modified the injunction, deciding to allow Baxandall to sell to the customers of R.J.V. but continuing to block him from canvassing or soliciting those customers, pending the trial of the action. Baxandall and his new company successfully appealed the original Order with the Court of Appeal ordering that the injunction be vacated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Post employment obligations – Restraint of trade – Remedies – Injunctions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness R.J.V. Gas Field Services Ltd. v. Baxandall, [2003] A.J. No. 731, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 5, 2003, Russell and Wittmann J.J.A. and Smith J. (ad hoc) In granting the original ...

A helicopter pilot (“Veideman”) was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had not erred in concluding that Veideman had not exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention of a regulation by unlawfully operating an aircraft at a distance of less than 500 feet from a person

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Pilots – Disciplinary proceedings – Due diligence – Evidence – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Veideman v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2003] F.C.J. No. 751, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, May 12, 2003, Snider J. Veideman was a helicopter pilot transporting skiers in ...

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers judge’s ruling that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (the “Commissioner”) erred in law by failing to find that the release by the Legal Services Society (the “Respondent”) to a local newspaper reporter (the “Appellant”) of the names of the top five “billers” for immigration and criminal matters would breach solicitor-client privilege. The standard of review applied was one of correctness.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Legal Services Society – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Privacy commissioner – Standard of review – Correctness Legal Services Society v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1093, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May ...