The Appellant’s, a retired teacher, allegations of defamation, negligence, malice and arbitrary treatment against other employees of the school district were dismissed on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with them. The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes whose “essential character” arises from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of a collective agreement”. In such cases, the dispute must be dealt with by the dispute resolution process provided in the collective agreement and labour relations statutes and not by litigation in the Courts.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of court – Defamation – Qualified privilege Haight-Smith v. Neden, [2002] B.C.J. No. 375, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 27, 2002, Esson, Ryan and Levine JJ.A. If the “essential character” of the dispute arises from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective ...

An employer’s application for stay of proceedings of a human rights complaint was dismissed. Delay of 83 months since the first allegation and 56 months since the complaint was made was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high threshold necessary to support a remedy of a stay of proceedings

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Judicial review – Boards and tribunals – Bias – Breach of procedural fairness – Delay Crown Packaging Ltd. v. Ghinis, [2002] B.C.J. No. 489, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 7, 2002, Prowse, Hall and Mackenzie JJ.A. The events alleged as the grounds of the complaint arose in November ...

An Order-in-Council ordering striking teachers back to work was held to be ultra vires and of no force or effect due to a failure by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to consider each dispute separately and to meet a condition precedent to issuing the back to work order; namely finding that there was an emergency which was causing or may cause unreasonable hardship

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Legislation – Back to work orders – Questions of jurisdiction – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Standard of review Alberta Teachers’ Assn. v. Alberta, [2002] A.J. No. 268, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 1, 2002, Wachowich C.J.Q.B. The Alberta government ordered striking teachers back to work pursuant to a provision in ...

The fact that the Executive Director dealt with previous complaints to the Commission from the appellant does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. To do so would hold the Executive Director to too high a standard given the function he is to perform at the investigative stage of a complaint.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Boards and tribunals – Questions of jurisdiction – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Previous complaints – Investigative bodies – Fairness – Human rights complaints Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2002] P.E.I.J. No. 20, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Appeal Division, March 4, 2002, Mitchell C.J.P.E.I., McQuaid and ...

The applicant objected to appearing at a hearing to determine whether his name should be entered on the Child Abuse Register, arguing he was not a compellable witness and the Ministry had not met its disclosure obligations. His application was dismissed, as section 11 of the Charter did not apply to a witness in civil proceeding. Section 7 applied but was not infringed because it was done in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Stinchcombe disclosure obligations do not apply to the Crown in such proceedings.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Hearings – Compellability of witness – Disclosure – Child abuse registers Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. D.J.M., [2002] N.S.J. No. 119, Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Family Division), March 4, 2002, Hood J. The Ministry of Community Services sought to have the name of D.J.M. placed on ...

A police constable’s application for certiorari of Chair of the Scotia Police Review Board to extend time to complete an investigation was dismissed. Correctness is the standard of review for interpreting the regulation as permitting an extension after the investigation was complete. Patent unreasonableness is the standard respecting his findings and exercise of discretion in granting the extension.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness test – Patent unreasonableness – Questions of jurisdiction – Extension of time – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Privative clauses Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2002] N.S.J. No. 112, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, February 8, 2002, Moir J. Constable Symington was the subject ...

The Applicant police officer appealed from the decision of the Saskatchewan Police Commission (the “Commission”) which found the Applicant guilty of discreditable conduct and imposed a disciplinary penalty. The court made an order in the nature of certiorari and set aside the decision of the Police Commission because the Commissioner failed to comply with the imperative procedural requirements of the Police Act.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Statutory powers – Remedies – Certiorari – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Privative clauses Selinger v. Saskatchewan (Police Commission), [2002] S.J. No. 95, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, February 5, 2002, Kyle, J. The Commission made an order on May 22, 2001, dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the ...

A member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) sought judicial review of the Registrar’s decision to amend a Notice of Hearing after the hearing commenced. The application was dismissed as it was premature since the discipline panel had not been given an opportunity to decide if it would hear the new charges.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – Amendment of notice of hearing – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings Henderson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2001] O.J. No. 5367, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 22, 2001, Then, J. A discipline panel of the College accepted jurisdiction over ...

The City of Toronto applied to the court to have a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (the “Board”) set aside. The Board had determined that a City by-law was illegal. In granting the City’s petition, the court held that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine the legislative competency of a municipality.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Municipal boards – Questions of jurisdiction – Change of by-laws Toronto City v. Goldlist Properties Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 601, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 20, 2002, Blair, Day and Marchand, JJ. Counsel for the City of Toronto (the “City”) adopted bylaw no. 147-1999 which amended the metropolitan Toronto official plan. ...

An Application for Judicial Review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board was dismissed. The Court held that the evidence upon which Appeal Division based its decision was sufficient to support its decision.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – National Parole Board hearings Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), (2001) F.C.J. No. 1089, Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, July 4, 2001, Nadon, J. The Plaintiff (“Cartier”) was serving a 15-year term of imprisonment for manslaughter. The parole board ordered that he be kept in custody ...