Powerex applied for an order recognizing and enforcing an arbitration award made in Portland, Oregon against Alcan. Alcan had applied in the United States to have the award set aside. Alcan argued, and the Court agreed, that the enforcement of the award should be adjourned pending the outcome of the United States appeal, with security to be paid to Powerex.

24. August 2004 0
Powerex Corp. v. Alcan Inc., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1349, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 30, 2004, Brown J. In 1997, Alcan was required to supply a given amount of power to B.C. Hydro. Alcan designated Enron Power Marketing Inc. as the supplier, but remained liable for full and proper performance of its obligations and those ...

A man who was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disability for the offence of murder (“Wiebe”) successfully appealed from a disposition review and order of the Manitoba Review Board (the “Board”) that he should be detained without treatment

24. August 2004 0
Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Wiebe, [2004] M.J. No. 247, Manitoba Court of Appeal, June 25, 2004, Scott C.J.M., Hamilton and Freedman JJ.A. Wiebe was found to be NCR in December of 2001. At trial, a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist gave opinion evidence that Wiebe had a borderline personality disorder (BPD), and had ...

The rigid application of In-Home Treatment Program guidelines, to the exclusion of the consideration of a family’s particular circumstances, amounted to an unreasonable exercise of discretion by the Defendant

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – School boards – Powers and duties – Discretion of delegated authority – Special programs for autistic children – Funding – Guidelines – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Statutory provisions Dassonville-Trudel (Guardian ad litem of) v. Halifax Regional School Board, [2004] N.S.J. No. 241, Nova ...

In weighing the merits of the Appellants’ rezoning requests, the Defendant municipality was discharging a duty delegated to it by the legislature. The Defendant was bound to exercise the powers conferred upon it fairly, in good faith and with a view to the public interest. The Defendant did not fulfil its duty of procedural fairness in refusing two rezoning applications brought by the Appellants as it gave no reasons for its denial. In refusing to justify its decision, the Defendant breached its duty of procedural fairness.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Appeals – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Statutory provisions – Public interest – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Charter of Rights – Discrimination Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] S.C.J. No. 45, Supreme ...

The Appellants’ application for a shellfish tenure was found to be akin to a licence application. Thus, the duty of fairness was minimal, and the trial judge did not err in holding that the Appellants were not entitled to make submissions or to have an oral hearing.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Permits and licences – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Discretion of delegated authority Lorindale Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia Assets and Land Corp., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1271, British Columbia Court of Appeal, June 16, 2004, Donald, Hall and Lowry JJ.A. The Appellants were in the business ...

On judicial review, the court held that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Human Rights Tribunal member’s decision to order the matter to proceed to an inquiry was unreasonable

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon Regional Health Authority v. Kahsai, [2004] S.J. No. 417, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, May 27, 2004, Foley J. The Saskatoon Regional ...

The Plaintiff “held an office” with the Defendant Municipality and therefore a duty of fairness applied to the administrative decision to terminate his employment. The Plaintiff was entitled to a hearing which he did not receive; therefore, the Defendant municipality did not comply with its duty of procedural fairness in terminating his employment.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Wrongful dismissal – Hold an office – definition – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness Reglin v. Creston (Town), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1218, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 10, 2004, Melnick J. The Plaintiff ...

Solicitor “Y” was found guilty of two charges of professional misconduct for failing to honour provisions in retainer agreements, in one instance a money-back guarantee and in another limiting fees to $2,500. He unsuccessfully applied for review of the decision of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (“Society”) pursuant to s. 32(13) of the Barristers and Solicitors Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.30 (the “Act”).

24. August 2004 0
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v. Solicitor “Y”, [2004] N.S.J. No. 260, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, June 9, 2004, Glube C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud JJ.A. The Court considered the standard of review analysis laid out in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982. The Act did not contain a privative ...

The court held that the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses (the “Council”) was unreasonable in its approach to the assessment of the Respondent’s credibility and in its application of the standard of proof, holding that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to safely sustain two of the complaints against the Appellant Nurse. However, the Council’s decision that the Nurse failed to maintain the ethical standards of practice of the profession was rationally supported by the evidence and it was not shown to be unreasonable.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Gillis v. Council for Licensed Practical Nurses, [2004] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 20, 2004, ...

An appeal pursuant to section 43 of the Public Hospitals Act was dismissed as the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the “HPARB”) was held to have understood its role and applied the proper tests, resulting in a conclusion that was reasonable. While there had been a denial of procedural fairness in that the Appellant was provided with a package of 17 complaints at a meeting without being afforded an opportunity to investigate and consider them, that denial was “corrected” when it was agreed by the parties to have the situation reviewed by an independent expert agreeable to both parties.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Hospital privileges – Suspensions – Fairness – Public interest – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Soremekun v. University Health Network, [2004] O.J. No. 2085, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 18, 2004, MacFarland, Wilson and Swinton ...