The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found the WCB’s decision that the injured worker’s medical marijuana did not qualify for medical aid under its policy was reasonable, and that the policy itself requiring qualifying medical aid treatment to be consistent with Canadian healthcare standards was intra vires and consistent with the Workers Compensation Act

15. May 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Appeals – Compliance with legislation – Ultra vires Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2018] N.S.J. No. 74, 2018 NSCA 23, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, March 9, 2018, D.R. ...

Ontario Court confirms Horse Racing Commission Panel’s finding that Trainers met the “defence” of due diligence

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission (the “Applicant”) applied for judicial review of a decision made by a panel of the Commission (the “Panel”). The Panel had reduced the penalties imposed on four horse trainers after their horses tested positive for a controlled substance after a race. The Court dismissed the application for judicial ...

The appellants appealed from a judicial review decision that upheld a tribunal finding that because a worker’s claim was not compensable under the legislation, the claim did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the tribunal’s interpretation imposed a construction that was contrary to the legislative intent and at odds with the factual realities of the situation. The court substituted its own determination on the substance of the claim.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – In and out of the course of employment – Statutory provisions – Psychological injury – Stress claims – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Legislative intent – Standard of ...

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal’s (“WCAT”) interpretation of its policy, which resulted in a decision not to use class average wages to calculate the appellant worker’s permanent disability pension benefits, was found by the Court of Appeal not to be patently unreasonable. There was nothing in the WCAT reasons to suggest that the policy could never apply to migrants from other provinces or to workers whose recent actual earnings reflected their choices about where to work or what kind of job to take. Rather, the reasons disclosed a finding that the policy did not apply to the appellant given the particular facts before the WCAT. Interpretation of Board policy fell within WCAT’s exclusive jurisdiction and lay at the heart of the WCAT’s specialized function and expertise on appeal. Courts in judicial review proceedings are required to show deference and interfere only when an interpretation is patently unreasonable. In this case, WCAT’s interpretation of the policy turned on recognizing the purpose of the policy to protect against inequitable use of actual earnings where those earnings are not sufficient to allow a determination of what best represents the worker’s long-term loss of earnings in circumstances where there was an element of unfairness in using past earnings rather than a class average, i.e. where a worker’s income would be almost certain to increase substantially. Such an interpretation was not “clearly irrational” nor did it fail to accord with reason or border on the absurd. As a result, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Average earnings – method of calculation – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Phillips v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. ...

The Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) appealed a decision, which allowed the Respondent’s application for a judicial review of compensation entitlement and invalidating a policy. The respondent cross-appealed the judicial review decision on the basis of the invalidation of policy.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of court Jozipovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. No. 801, 2012 BCCA 174, ...

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Worker’s Compensation Board and restored its decision to compensate an injured worker based on calculations made under a new policy implemented under the Workers’ Compensation Act

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mellor v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2012] S.J. No. 57, 2012 SKCA ...

The applications by non-profit environmental organizations for judicial review of Ministers’ decisions concerning their obligations under s.58 of the Species at Risk Act (“SARA”) to provide legal protection for the critical habitat of resident killer whales was allowed where the court held that the Ministers failed to respond to the duty assigned to them by the SARA which compelled them to act in specific ways to protect critical habitat of species at risk

25. January 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial orders – Policies – Environmental issues – Wildlife habitat – Protections of species – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Validity and application of policies and guidelines David Suzuki Foundation v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [2010] F.C.J. No. 1471, 2010 FC 1233, Federal ...

Robert Latimer (“Latimer”) won a judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board which had refused his request to expand his leave privileges by reducing the number of nights that he was required to return to a halfway house each week

28. September 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – National Parole Board hearings – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Standard of review – Correctness Latimer v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 970, Federal Court Vancouver, British Columbia, August 5, 2010, Mactavish J. In 2001, Latimer ...

The appeal by workers from a decision quashing a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision to proceed with their human rights complaint was allowed where the Court held that the Tribunal’s decision to proceed was discretionary and was not patently unreasonable

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Workers Compensation Boards – Discretion of tribunal – Workers compensation – Benefits – Policies – Validity and application of policies – Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review ...