The Petitioner, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) had standing to bring the Petition since the enabling legislation separated the investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions of the APEGBC. The clear purpose of the Act was to establish the independence and impartiality of the three functions. The Petitioner was not seeking to recover judgment against itself; rather it was seeking a determination of the correctness of a ruling made by a statutorily created panel with distinct functions and responsibilities. However, the court could not conclude that the panel’s decision represented an error on the face of the record.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Governance – Functions of a self-governing body – Discipline committee decisions – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Certiorari Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia v. Visser, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1053, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 25, 2004, Cullen J. The APEGBC sought, ...

The Applicant worker employed in the coal mines of Cape Breton Development Corporation (“Devco”), a federal corporation, applied for workers compensation based on loss of lung function due to occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board refused his claims for want of evidence of loss of lung function. In dismissing the appeals, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal held the worker to the civil standard of proof, because he was a federal employee claiming under the Government Employees Compensation Act (“GECA”). The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the matter should be remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal for review of all the relevant evidence in light of the provisions of the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Act.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Federal and provincial legislation – Government employees – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Jurisdiction McLellan v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2003] N.S.J. No. 365, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 14, 2003, Glube C.J.N.S., Freeman and ...

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Appeals Commission of the WCB (the “Appeals Commission”) made no reviewable error in concluding that the Respondent was an insured worker acting in the course of his employment when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Applicant who was similarly subject to the operation of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15 (the “Act”). In the result, the Applicant was barred by operation of s. 23(1) of the Act from pursuing a civil action commenced against the Respondent for losses occasioned in the accident.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Statutory provisions – Worker – Definition – Immunity from civil actions – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions Barker v. Sowa, [2003] A.J. No. 1276, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 16, 2003, Bielby J. The Applicant applied for judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Commission dated August 7, ...

A disposition by the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) allowing an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity and who remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, to be transferred to his country of origin for care and supervision was found unreasonable by the Court of Appeal. In finding that the disposition was unreasonable, the Court held that the existence of a deportation order was irrelevant to the Board’s consideration whether to return a dangerous patient to his native land and should not have been considered.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Deportation orders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction R. v. Miller, [2003] O.J. No. 3455, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 10, 2003, Charron, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A. Miller was found not guilty ...

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, ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) appealed the decision of the Divisional Court, quashing a newly Amended Notice of Hearing on the basis that the Registrar for the College had proffered the Amended Notice of Hearing in the middle of a disciplinary hearing in the absence of statutory authority to do so. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Divisional Court upheld. The issue raised on appeal was whether the Registrar of the College had the jurisdiction to refer new allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence of a member of the College to the Discipline Committee after a discipline hearing had already commenced against that member.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Fairness – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Amendment of notice of hearing – Jurisdiction Henderson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 2213, Ontario Court of Appeal, June 5, 2003, Weiler, Rosenberg and Armstrong, JJ.A. Allegations of professional ...

The appeal of a worker (“Gauthier”) of the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, wherein they held that the average earnings he lost through a work-related injury should be calculated considering the period during which he was not receiving any employment income, was dismissed.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Statutory provisions – Average earnings – Method of calculation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Gauthier v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2003] N.B.J. No. 139, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, April 10, 2003, Drapeau C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Robertson JJ.A. The New Brunswick Court ...

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, ...

An inmate in a federal institution was unsuccessful on an appeal of a decision of a Supreme Court judge, dismissing an application for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Statutory provisions – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Jurisdiction of court Hickey v. Kent Institution, [2003] B.C.J. No. 61, British Columbia Court of Appeal, January 16, 2003, Rowles, Ryan and Saunders JJ.A. The appellant, an inmate in a federal institution, made application to a judge of the Supreme ...

The defendant doctors were successful on an application for summary dismissal of the plaintiff doctor’s action for defamation with respect to letters written to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia about the plaintiff’s medical practices

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Governance – Statutory provisions – Disciplinary proceedings – Defamation – Boards and tribunals – Absolute privilege – Qualified privilege Schut v. Magee, [2003] B.C.J. No. 102, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 20, 2003, Kirkpatrick J. The plaintiff doctor brought an action against the defendant doctors and members of the ...