The Board of Education for the Regina School District applied unsuccessfully for an Order setting aside the decision of the Board of Reference which was convened to determine whether or not School Division No. 4 had acted reasonably in terminating a teacher’s contract. As there was no error on the face of the record, the court held that the School District failed to establish that the decision of the Board was patently unreasonable and their application was dismissed with costs.

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Teachers – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Board of Reference – Interpretation of Evidence – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Regina School Division No. 4 v. Hallgrimson, [2004] S.J. No. 198, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, March 25, 2004, Dawson J. Gilbert ...

In January 1999, Staff Sergeant Marvin Taylor tendered his resignation to the Regina Police Service. He left the service due to the stress in his relationship with his superior. Over three years later, Mr. Taylor submitted a claim to the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) for compensation on the grounds that he left his employment due to stress. The stress claim was rejected at all levels of the WCB. After exhausting his internal appeals, Mr. Taylor applied to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. The court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the court’s task was to address the question of whether the WCB’s decision lacked reason and/or rationality. The Court held that Mr. Taylor had not demonstrated that the decision was patently unreasonable and the application was dismissed.

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Stress claims – Test – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review application – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Appeal process – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Taylor v. Workers’ Compensation Board, [2004] S.J. No. 224, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in a judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35 (“PSSRA”). The issue was whether the Adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness. The Trial Division Judge found no breach of procedural fairness and dismissed the judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and quashed the decision of the Adjudicator.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Adjudication – Evidence Gale v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2004] F.C.J. No. 186, Federal Court of Appeal, January 12, 2004, Strayer, Rothstein and Sharlow JJ.A. Mr. Gale was a correctional officer at a Saskatchewan Penitentiary. A female colleague made a complaint ...

Dr. Devgan was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the College. Following the hearing, Dr. Devgan appealed the decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee was stayed. The College sought to lift the automatic stay of the Order. The court refused to lift the stay so long as Dr. Devgan complied with a number of conditions. Dr. Devgan failed to comply with the court’s conditions and the College once again sought to lift the stay. The College’s motion was granted and Dr. Devgan’s licence to practise was revoked.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Public interest – Suspensions – Stay of suspension – Court imposed conditions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons Devgan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 517, Ontario Superior Court of ...

Ms. Neto successfully appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) that had determined that she was not capable of consenting to the administering of several medications to treat bipolar affective disorder

20. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Consent and Capacity Board – Capacity – Test – Right to refuse medical treatment – Mental health – Consent to treatment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Neto v. Klukach, [2004] O.J. No. 394, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 10, 2004, Day J. Ms. Neto is a ...

The application was for a judicial review of a decision of the Registrar refusing Ms. Moses’s registration as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act. The applicant’s judicial review application was struck as moot, since she had already registered pursuant to section 6(1)(f)of the Act. In determining the issue the court considered (1) registration pursuant to 6(1)(f) of the Act provided the applicant with all of the same benefits as registration pursuant to 6(1)(a) of the Act; (2) the judicial review was not an efficient use of scarce judicial resources; and (3) in the absence of a dispute having an effect on the rights of parties a Court decision would be an intrusion on the role of the legislative branch of the government.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Registration as an Indian – Judicial review application – Striking out – Mootness – Compliance with legislation Moses v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1835, Federal Court, December 3, 2003, Hargrave, Prothonotary Ms. Moses was confirmed as an Indian pursuant to section 6(1)(f) of the Indian Act. She filed an application ...

An inmate appealed a denial of family visits on the basis that he had refused to participate in a sex offender program. The Court concluded that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, R.S.C. 1992, c.20 (the “Act”) did not appear reasonable. The Act provided that Mr. Edwards had a right to family visits subject only to reasonable limits. The court concluded the Commissioner erred when she decided that it was a “reasonable limit” to require that Mr. Edwards successfully complete the sex offender assessment and consequently the inmate’s application was granted. The matter was sent back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Visiting rights – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Prison Commissioner – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1887, Federal Court, December 10, 2003, Von Finckenstein Mr. Edwards was a federal inmate at Joyceville Institution. He was serving a ...

A police Constable appealed a Hearings Officer’s sentence of dismissal to the Commission. The Commission allowed the appeal and substituted a penalty of demotion. The Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) appealed the Commission’s decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The appeal was allowed and the penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer was reinstated.

24. February 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Favretto v. Ontario (Provincial Police), [2003] O.J. No. 5052, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 2, 2003, O’Driscoll, Then and Benotto JJ. On April 16, 1996, Constable Favretto, ...

A chiropractor, convicted of six counts of professional misconduct and sentenced to nine months suspension and costs of over $80,000, unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Suspensions – Costs – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ressel v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3032, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 25, 2003, O’Driscoll, Then and Lang ...