Union appealed decision dismissing application for want of prosecution, in relation to judicial review petition, on grounds the employee petitioner was self-represented

25. February 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Disclosure of records – Labour law – Working conditions – Practice and procedure – Dismissal for want of prosecution – Judicial review – Delay – Self-representation Cole v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, [2014] B.C.J. No. 5, 2014 BCCA 2, British Columbia Court of ...

The Court dismissed the application of judicial review of an employee of the Canada Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”), of a decision of an appeals officer of the occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada (the “Tribunal”), who concluded that there was no “danger” within the meaning of the Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c.L-2 (the “Code”) justifying the employee’s refusal to work. This was the second application for judicial review resulting from the refusal to work, with the first application being allowed, with the matter referred back to the appeals officer to “complete her analysis in accordance with the reasons of the judgment”. The Court found no breach of procedural fairness in the appeals officer declining the request to hold a hearing following the first judgment of the Court and before making her second decision. The Court also found the decision reasonable, finding that the appeals officer’s decision fell within the range of acceptable and rational solutions. The decision had the qualities of reasonableness, in that the decision-making process was justifiable, transparent and intelligible.

24. December 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal – Labour law – Working conditions – Judicial review – Appeals – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness Laroche v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.C.J. No. 859, 2013 FC 797, Federal Court , July 18, 2013, Roy J. This was ...

An employer applied for judicial review of a decision of the Employment Standards Tribunal. The Tribunal had purported to cure a breach of natural justice in a reconsideration decision, rather than return the matter to be heard anew. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the Reconsideration Panel had acted fairly in all the circumstances, and the process and hearing afforded to the employer accorded with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Employment Standards Tribunal – Employment law – Termination of employment – Working conditions – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Disclosure – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Taiga Works Wilderness Equipment ...

The standard of review of an adjudicator’s decision made pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993, S.S. 1993, c. O-1.1, on a point of law, is correctness. Section 27 of the Act which prohibits an employer from taking discriminatory action against a worker applies only as between the employer and the employer’s worker. The section does not apply as between an employer and a person who is a worker on the employer’s worksite but is not employed by the employer but by some other entity.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Occupational Health and Safety Officer – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Discrimination – Labour relations – Working conditions – Workers compensation – Worker – definition – Employer – definition Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Oppenlander, [2009] S.J. No. ...

The University of Saskatchewan (the “University”) applied for judicial review of a decision of the Visitor of the University directing that the Respondent, Dr. Pearlman, be permitted to continue his residency at the College. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the Visitor for further consideration. The Court held that the standard of review in this case was patent unreasonableness. Although the Court held that the Visitor had broad remedial powers to investigate the matter, the Court overturned its decision, as it did not comply with the Labour Standards Act.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Universities – Evaluation of residents – Labour law – Working conditions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Pearlman v. University of Saskatchewan, [2006] S.J. No. 618, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 27, 2006, Cameron, Lane and ...

The reviewing judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application as the adjudicator interpreted the discrimination provisions in the Applicant’s collective agreement in a way that was neither silly, bordering on the absurd, nor clearly irrational. The construction given to the discrimination provisions was rationally supported by the relevant legislation.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Bainbridge v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), [2005] N.B.J. No. 114, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 10, 2005, W.S. Turnbull, M.E.L. Larlee and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. The Applicants ...

Mrs. Lewis appealed the Director of the Department of Labour’s decision cancelling an officer’s decision that the School Board had wrongfully discriminated against the appellant. In 1996, Mrs. Lewis suspected that the cause of her health problems arose from the modular classroom to which she had recently been assigned and complained to the Board of Education. The Board declared that the classroom was safe. Mrs. Lewis filed a complaint with the Occupational Health and Safety Division of the Department of Labour, claiming that the Board had discriminated against her by failing to find her a new classroom. The tribunal held that the Board had failed to provide good and sufficient reasons for its failure to provide an alternative classroom. The Board appealed the decision and was successful on appeal. Mrs. Lewis appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, who held that the adjudicator committed no error in concluding that there was no discriminatory action by the Board against Mrs. Lewis. Mrs. Lewis’ appeal was dismissed.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Working conditions – Schools – Teachers – Discrimination Lewis v. Regional School Division No. 4, [2003] S.J. No. 526, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, July 31, 2003, Matheson J. After being assigned to the modular classroom in 1996, Mrs. Lewis began to experience persistent health problems. Her family doctor ...

The court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a professor’s claims against the University based on the torts of non-sexual common law harassment, intimidation, and unlawful interference with economic interests. In the result, the action was dismissed. The essential nature of the dispute related to the working conditions of employees and the failure of the University to take adequate measures to ensure a safe and harassment free working environment. The appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute was the grievance and arbitration procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Jurisdiction of court – Universities – Jurisdiction Hemmings v. University of Saskatchewan, [2002] S.J. No. 457, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, July 30, 2002, Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson JJ.A. A tenured professor commenced an action against the University for intimidation, intentional infliction of harm, ...