On judicial review, the applicant, Siksika Nation (“Siksika”), sought to quash the decision of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (the “Board”) granting a liquor licence to the respondent, Walji Holdings Limited (“Walji”) on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and breached the principles of natural justice. The Court, in light of the applicable law and the strict standard of review, found that the decision to grant the licence was not patently unreasonable and therefore did not warrant judicial intervention. However, the Court did note that the Alberta gaming and liquor legislation was deficient in failing to enumerate public interest as a consideration in granting licences but, being constrained by the wording of the legislation, had to dismiss the application for judicial review.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Gaming and Liquor Commission – Permits and licences – Powers under legislation – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Siksika Nation v. Walji ...

The Ontario Nurses’ Association (the “Association”), representing a nurse who was terminated for innocent absenteeism due to disability (“Tilley”), successfully applied for judicial review of a decision of a Board of Arbitration which had held that the hospital’s failure to pay severance to Tilley did not violate s.15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”)

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Severance pay – Human rights complaints – Disability – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Ontario Nurses’ Assn. v. Mount Sinai Hospital, [2004] O.J. No. 162, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional ...

A teacher with the Scarborough Board of Education (“Layzell”) unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) regarding complaints she had filed alleging discrimination and reprisal based on her sex and disability as an individual afflicted by multiple sclerosis

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Teachers – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Procedural requirements and fairness Layzell v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 5448, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, January ...

Two probationary officers in the Saskatoon Police Service were dismissed by the Chief of Police as being unsuitable for police service after they committed plagiarism while at Police College. Their Union sought to grieve the dismissals under the collective bargaining agreement. The Employer under the collective agreement, the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners, took the position that it lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the grievances because they dealt with discipline issues rather than employer-employee issues. A board of arbitration found the grievances to be arbitrable, and the Chief of Police successfully appealed. The issue on appeal was whether the arbitration board had correctly found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievances.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Penalties and suspensions – Plagiarism at police college – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear disciplinary grievances – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon (City) Police Force v. Saskatoon (Police Commission), ...

A physician (“Dr. Young”) successfully appealed both the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (the “College”) in which he was found guilty of unbecoming, improper, unprofessional or discreditable conduct and the associated penalty

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Reliability – Witnesses – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Young v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [2004] S.J. No. 21, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 13, 2004, Koch J. Dr. Young was ...

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd (“ATCO”) successfully appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the “Board”) on the basis that the Board lacked the jurisdiction to allocate to customers some of the proceeds of the sale of assets formerly used for utility purposes

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Energy and Utilities Board – Jurisdiction – Sale of assets – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), [2004] A.J. No. 45, Alberta Court of Appeal, January 27, 2004, ...

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, ...

The Appellant provincial municipal assessor (“Assessor”) was granted leave to appeal pursuant to section 63 of the Municipal Assessment Act on the question of whether the municipal board (“Municipal Board”) committed an error of law by determining that the entire real property assessment roll for the Respondent Seagram Company (“Seagram”) was open for review when Seagram appealed its 1999 amended assessment. The success on the appeal was split between the Respondent and the Appellant, with the court finding that the Municipal Board committed an error of law by determining that the real property assessment for one parcel of the Seagram land was open for review because Seagram had no right of appeal in regard to the 1999 amended taxes for that parcel of land, and that the Municipal Board did not commit an error of law by determining that the entire real property assessment for the second parcel of land was open for review when Seagram appealed its 1999 supplementary taxes for roll no. 199700. The matter was referred back to the Municipal Board for further consideration.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Property assessment – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Right of appeal – Standard of review – Correctness Manitoba (Provincial Municipal Assessor) v. Seagram Co., [2003] M.J. No. 393, Manitoba Court of Appeal, November 3, 2003, Huband, Philp, Twaddle, Hamilton and Freedman JJ.A. Seagram had owned ...