A business communications company (“Brunico”) which owned two national, biweekly, tabloid-sized publications successfully applied for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Heritage Minister (“Minister”) to disqualify it for funding in the year 2001-2002 under the Support for Editorial Content Grant Program, where the Minister had applied a test adopted only in January of 2002 to determine whether the publications were newspapers or magazines, and whether they were therefore eligible for funding

22. June 2004 0
Brunico Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] F.C.J. No. 789, Federal Court, April 30, 2004, Von Finckenstein J. Brunico first applied for funding for its publications under the Support for Editorial Content Grant Program in October of 2000. Brunico received funding totalling more than $200,000. However, on its second application, Brunico was denied funding. ...

An Indian (“Pogson”) within the meaning of the Indian Act successfully applied for a reference under s.74(1) of the Firearms Act (the “Act”) to overturn the decision of a delegate of the Chief Firearms Officer who had rejected her application for a licence to possess and acquire non restricted firearms.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Aboriginal issues – Firearms – licences – Infringement on Aboriginal rights – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Firearms Officer – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Judicial notice Pogson v. Alberta (Chief Firearms Officer), [2004] A.J. No. 248, Alberta Provincial Court, March 1, 2004, Demetrick Prov. ...

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia (“AIBC”) was unsuccessful on an application for judicial review of the adjudication of a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act request for various employment contracts of executives with AIBC, made by a former employee of AIBC (“Redenbach”)

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Architectural Institute of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] B.C.J. No. 465, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 18, 2004, Metzger J. Redenbach requested various information from AIBC, some of ...

Starson, who was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, had been detained in hospital and unsuccessfully appealed from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) that he should continue to be detained in a medium security unit, on the basis of the Board’s findings that he represented a significant threat to society, and that the disposition of keeping him in medium security was the least onerous disposition, were unreasonable

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Inmates Not Criminally Responsible for their crimes – Transfer of inmates – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R v. Starson, [2004] O.J. No. 941, Ontario Court of Appeal, March ...

Fryingpan, who was allegedly assaulted by a police officer, successfully applied to quash the decision of the Edmonton Police Commission (the “Commission”) to hold his complaint about the officer’s conduct in abeyance and for a direction that the complaint be reviewed pursuant to s.46(3) of the Police Act R.S.A. 2000,CP-17

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Police Complaint Commissioner – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Bias – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Fryingpan v. Edmonton (City) Police Commissions, [2004] A.J. No. 225, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2004, Murray J. In October 2002, Fryingpan’s mother filed a complaint ...

Canada Post Corporation (“Canada Post”) successfully appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (“WCAT”) that a worker (“Myatt”) had suffered a recurrence of a 1998 compensable stress injury and should be entitled to benefits on the basis that WCAT failed to defer to the decision of the Hearing Officer who had the advantage of hearing oral testimony in the matter

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Psychological injury – employment related – Test – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canada Post Corp. v. Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, [2004] N.S.J. No. 105, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, March 16, 2004, Roscoe, Chipman and ...

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice quashed decisions of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (the “Ministry”) relating to applications for funding by parents of children with disabilities including Autism Spectrum Disorder. The court found that the process employed by the Ministry to consider the proposals at issue fell short of the procedural fairness mandated by law.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Government – Funding of programs – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Nieberg (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario (Minister of Community Family and Children’s Services), [2004] O.J. No. 1135, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 18, 2004, Benotto, Dunn and McCombs JJ. Jared ...

The appeal by a notary public (“Bailey”) of the penalty imposed by the Board of Directors of the Society of Notaries was dismissed. The court held that the decision to impose a fine and a suspension on a third complaint arising from a breach of an undertaking was not unreasonable.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Notaries – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Society of Notaries – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Bailey v. Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. No. 626, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 27, 2004, Brown J. On December 27, 2002, the ...

The appeal by an employer (“Vantage”) from a decision of the Human Rights Panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission was dismissed where the court found that the evidence considered by the Panel clearly established that Vantage had not given consideration to accommodation of the physical limitations of the complainant (“Marcil”). The court also upheld the Panel’s decision to award $28,000 as compensation for lost employment income.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Vantage Contracting Inc. v. Marcil, [2004] A.J. No. 368, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 29, 2004, ...

The Province of New Brunswick (the “Employer”) appealed the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench quashing the interim decision of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (the “Board”) designating Teachers’ Assistants employed by the public schools as “essential employees”. In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Board’s interim decision was not patently unreasonable as the legislation at issue was subject to an interpretation that would allow for two possible conclusions, and the Board had the right to choose the interpretation it preferred.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Essential employees – Schools – Teachers’ assistants – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2745 v. New Brunswick (Board of ...