On January 29, 2001, the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association found the Applicant guilty of unskilled practice of pharmacy and professional misconduct. The Applicant sought an order quashing the decision of the Council, arguing that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Discipline Committee resulting from an inappropriate involvement of its Registrar. The court found a reasonable apprehension of bias and quashed the decision of the Council.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Pharmacists – Disciplinary proceedings – Billing practices – Boards and tribunals – Bias Sawchuk v. Manitoba Pharmaceutical Assn., [2002] M.J. No. 384, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, September 25, 2002, Darichuk J. In the summer of 1998, a series of articles was published in a newspaper alleging fraudulent billing practices on the part ...

Mr. Helgesen was served with a 90-day administrative driving prohibition after refusing to provide a breath sample. Mr. Helgesen appealed to an adjudicator arguing that he had a reasonable excuse. The adjudicator disagreed and Mr. Helgesen petitioned for judicial review. The court concluded that the adjudicators decision was not patently unreasonable and the judicial review was dismissed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyser test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Not patently unreasonable Helgesen v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2238, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 3, 2002, Macaulay J. Mr. Helgesen was driving a motor ...

A standard of correctness applies to an appeal from a chambers judge’s decision on a standard of review to be applied to a tribunal’s decision. The appellate court is in the same position as the reviewing judge. In this case, the chambers judge erred in concluding that a standard of reasonableness simpliciter applied to the tribunal and the appeal was allowed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review of appellate court – Correctness test – Not patently unreasonable Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Telus Communications Inc., [2002] A.J. No. 1068, Alberta Court of Appeal, September 4, 2002, Berger, O’Leary and Hunt JJ.A. The Municipal Government Board (“MGB”) determined that feature software used in ...

Once a fishing guide employee has shown he has been denied employment because of his mental disability, “prima facie discrimination” is established. The onus then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the “standard” imposed by it (reasonable safely on the water) was a bona fide occupational requirement. In doing so, the employer’s direct experience with the employee is relevant evidence. Matter remitted to be determined on proper consideration of evidence.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Disability – Evidence – Duty to accommodate – Occupational requirement Oak Bay Marina Ltd. (c.o.b. Painter’s Lodge) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2029, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 10, 2002, Newbury, Hall and Saunders JJ.A. A fishing guide with a bipolar affective disorder ...

On appeal to the court for a judicial review of an Appeal Commission decision under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. W200, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Commission’s decision not to read in words to section 1(3) and to decline to pierce the corporate veil was not patently unreasonable.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Worker – definition – Piercing corporate veil – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Poulin v. Manitoba (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2002] M.J. No. 341, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, August 13, 2002, McKelvey J. The Applicant was the sole shareholder, director and president of NL Poulin Ltd. The ...

The appellant had sought an expansion of its liquor licence. The Liquor Licencing Board dismissed this request and an appeal was brought pursuant to section 23 of the Liquor Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. L-9. The appeal was dismissed. When deciding whether to issue a licence, it is not improper for the Board to consider social problems.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction – Bias – Liquor licencing boards – Social issues 994401 NWT Ltd. (c.o.b. Ravens Pub) v. Northwest Territories (Liquor Licensing Board), [2002] N.W.T.J. No. 66, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, August 8, 2002, Richard J. The Appellant was the licensee of a cocktail lounge, licensed to have 170 patrons ...

The Petitioner sought to have the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner of Investigation and Mediation’s (the “CIM”) decision to refer a complaint for hearing quashed. The court determined that the CIM’s decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Maple Grove Apartments Ltd. v. Dixon, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1722, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2002, Garson J. This matter involved a review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner of ...

The Applicant sought judicial review of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission’s refusal to accept a complaint. The court applied a standard of correctness. The Commission’s Certificate was correct and held that the Commission is without jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, which did not concern any ground of discrimination covered by the Act.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Jurisdiction – Access to child’s medical records by a divorced parent – Privative clauses – Boards and tribunals – Breach of procedural fairness – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Jurisdiction of court G.S. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 980, Alberta Queen’s Bench, July ...

The Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising out of the Defendant’s delivery of an investigation report to the professional association to which she belonged were dismissed. The Defendants were found to have acted in good faith and their actions were protected by absolute privilege.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigative bodies – Powers – Jurisdiction – Qualified privilege Hung v. Gardiner, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1918, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 21, 2002, Joyce J. Following an investigation of the Plaintiff’s supervising chartered accountant, the Professional Conduct Enquiry Committee (“PCEC”) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British ...

A number of adjoining landowners had successfully sought review of a Minister’s order granting an expansion of a landfill before the court. The Court of Appeal reversed the chambers judge’s decision and determined that a Minister’s order was not patently unreasonable and the failure to provide reasons in these circumstances did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.

24. September 2002 0
Administrative law – Environmental hearings – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Breach of procedural fairness – Failure to provide reasons Fenske (c.o.b. Glomick Farms) v. Alberta (Minister of Environment), [2002] A.J. No. 823, Alberta Court of Appeal, June 25, 2002, Berger, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A. The Beaver Waste Management Services Commission ...