IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA"

Transcription

1 Citation: Daryl-Evans v. Empl. Standards Date: BCSC 48 Docket: L Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DARYL-EVANS MECHANICAL LTD. AND: PETITIONER DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AND THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS TRIBUNAL AND JOHN E. TYLER RESPONDENTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HUMPHRIES (IN CHAMBERS) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Director of Employment Standards: Counsel for the Employment Standards Tribunal: Counsel for the Construction Labour Relations Association (Intervenor): Counsel for Independent Contractors and Businesses Association: Counsel for British Columbia Construction Association: P.A. Gall M. Westfall A.J. Adamic J.A. MacTavish T.A. Roper, Q.C. A.L. Zwack D.D. Chesman B.D. Dartnell Counsel for British Columbia and Yukon C.R. Gordon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council: Date and Place of Hearing: September 25, 26, 27, 2001 Vancouver, B.C. [1] This case concerns notice and severance pay for construction workers, specifically the applicability of section 65(1)(e) of Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c. 113 (the "Act") to the termination of employment of the respondent Mr. Tyler.

2 [2] The petitioner seeks to quash a decision of the Employment Standards Tribunal dated November 9, 2000, in which the Tribunal, on reconsideration of the adjudicator's decision of April 12, 2000, decided that the respondent Mr. Tyler, a construction worker formerly employed by the petitioner for a period of over five years on a variety of sites, was entitled to layoff or termination pay in lieu of notice. Mr. Tyler, though served with notice of the proceedings, did not enter an appearance or take any part in the proceedings. THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND HISTORY [3] In 1995, the Employment Standards Act SBC 1980, c. 10, was substantially amended, following receipt by the legislature of a report entitled Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace; a Review of Employment Standards in British Columbia (the "Mark Thompson Report"). The review was done and the report compiled by Mark Thompson, who was appointed as a Commissioner for those purposes by the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. [4] One of the major changes following upon the Mark Thompson Report was the creation of the Employment Standards Tribunal (the "Tribunal") under Part 12 of the new Act. Prior to these amendments, appeals from a decision of the Director of Employment Standards (the "Director") were taken directly to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Following the amendment, appeals go to the Tribunal, and this court's role is one of judicial review only. [5] Part 13 of the present Act deals with appeals. Section 112 provides that any person may appeal a determination (defined in section 1 as any decision made by the Director under a number of sections) to the Tribunal. Section 116 provides for reconsideration of any order or decision of the Tribunal. [6] Both before and after the amendments, the Act set out minimum requirements for notice in lieu of severance pay. The present section 63, which replaced the former section 42, reads: (1) After 3 consecutive months or employment, the employer becomes liable to pay an employee an amount equal to one week's wages as compensation for length of service. (2) The employer's liability for compensation for length of service increases as follows: (a) after 12 consecutive months of employment, to an amount equal to 2 weeks' wages; (b) after 3 consecutive years of employment, to an amount equal to 3 weeks' wages plus one additional week's wages for each additional year of employment, to a maximum of 8 weeks' wages.

3 (3) The liability is deemed to be discharged if the employee (a) is given written notice of termination... (b) is given a combination of notice and money... (c) terminates the employment, retires from employment, or is dismissed for just cause. [7] Prior to 1995, section 49.1 dealt with notice for group terminations of 50 or more employees. Section 49.2 provided: Section 49.1 does not apply to an employee industry. (e) employed in the construction [8] The Employment Standards Act Regulation, B.C. Reg. 37/81 s. 10, dealt with individual employees: 10. Part 5 of the Act does not apply to (b) a person employed to work at a construction site by an employer whose principal business is construction. [9] Under the present Act, the exceptions for both group and individual terminations are dealt with in section 65: 65 (1) Sections 63 [individual terminations] and section 64 [group terminations] do not apply to an employee (e) employed at a construction site by an employer whose principal business is construction... "Construction" is defined as "the construction, renovation, repair or demolition of property or the alteration or improvement of land." FACTS [10] Mr. Tyler was employed as a plumber by the petitioner, Daryl- Evans Mechanical Ltd. ("DEM") from March 6, 1994 to July 15, 1999 on a number of different and consecutive construction projects on various sites. There is no issue that DEM is an employer "whose principal business is construction." Mr. Tyler is not a member of a union. Mr. Tyler's employment with DEM ceased for reasons which all parties agreed are not relevant to the case before me, although the hearings at all levels have proceeded on the basis that the termination was not for

4 cause, as the issue of notice would not then arise (see section 63(3)(c) of the Act). [11] Following the cessation of his employment, Mr. Tyler sought compensation for length of service under section 63(2) of the Act. Accepting, on the evidence before her, that Mr. Tyler performed construction work, the Director held that he fell under the exemption contained in section 65(1)(e). She said: Since the Complainant was working on construction sites, there is no compensation for length of service owing to the Complainant. [12] Mr. Tyler appealed to the Tribunal. He was successful. The adjudicator ordered DEM to pay Mr. Tyler compensation for length of service. DEM sought a reconsideration of the adjudicator's decision pursuant to section 116 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicator's decision, saying: As an employee of some permanence who was not employed to work on a single site, we find that he is entitled to the protection of the Act. [13] The relevant portions of the Tribunal's reasons are set out more fully at a later point in this judgement. [14] DEM petitions this court to quash this decision and affirm the decision of the Director. The petitioner contends that the exception in section 65(1)(e) was intended to and must apply to workers who have worked on more than one site, regardless of the length of time of employment; that is, the exception applies to all construction workers. THE INTERVENORS [15] The intervenors, the Construction Labour Relations Association ("CLRA"), the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association ("ICBA"), were granted leave to intervene by this court on January 4, The British Columbia Construction Association ("BCCA") and the British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council ("BCYT") also made representations. All four intervenors filed affidavits. [16] Counsel for the Tribunal, supported by BCYT, objects to the admissibility of the affidavits from the intervenors. They agree that the sort of evidence contained in the affidavits of the intervenors is indeed useful for the decision maker to know, but they say the decision maker is the Tribunal and the statutory process should be protected. Therefore the information should have been before the Tribunal at first instance and should not be added to the record on judicial review. [17] Counsel for the ICBA, supported by CLRA and BCCA, submitted that the Tribunal's objection to the filing of affidavits was unseemly and inappropriate, as it appeared to be an attempt to defend the correctness of its decision (see Northwestern Utilities Ltd. et al. v.

5 Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684). ICBA, supported by CLRA and BCCA, also took the position that an intervenor (here the BCYT) could not object to the admissibility of evidence from another intervenor, on the basis that an intervenor can have no role in controlling or limiting the scope of proceedings. BCYT submitted that the principles of natural justice permit the Tribunal and other intervenors to object; otherwise only the petitioner could be heard on the matter and there would be no one to put the arguments before the court. [18] The argument raised by ICBA has merit, but where, as here, Mr. Tyler has not appeared, there is no one else but the Tribunal to defend the completeness of the record. Counsel for the Tribunal and counsel for BCYT shared the argument on this point. Without deciding the question of whether an intervenor may object to the evidence of another intervenor, I will consider the arguments advanced as if they all came from the Tribunal. Given the remarks in Paccar, infra, I am of the view that the Tribunal has a role in protecting the statutory process and these arguments are properly received from them in that context. [19] The parties generally agree on the law applicable to the issue of adding to the record on judicial review. As stated by Esson C.J.S.C., (as he then was), in Evans Forest Products Ltd. v. British Columbia, [1995] B.C.J. No. 729 (Q.L.) (B.C.S.C.) at para. 4: An applicant on judicial review is not necessarily confined to putting before the court that material which formed the record before the tribunal. Extrinsic evidence may be admissible to show lack of jurisdiction or denial of natural justice. [20] One of the arguments advanced by the petitioner is that the Tribunal's decision is contrary not only to the purposes of the Act as set out in section 2, but to historical interpretations, understandings and practices in the industry; these factors were known to the legislature and must be considered in an analysis of legislative intent. It is the petitioner's position that the Tribunal's decision was patently unreasonable because it negated the legislative will; in other words, the Tribunal purported to legislate rather than to interpret the legislation. Therefore the additional information, it is contended, goes to a jurisdictional issue. [21] The Tribunal, supported by BCYT, says that is not the sort of jurisdictional question upon which further evidence is admissible. According to counsel for the Tribunal, further evidence may be received only where the issue is one of pure jurisdiction - for example where there were extrinsic facts that would show a denial of natural justice or an erroneous initial assumption of jurisdiction. They rely on White Spot Limited v. BCLRB et al. (23 May 1997), Vancouver A (B.C.S.C.), which limited the applicability of Evans Forest Products, relying instead upon the "well-established rule" that the review is to be on the record only. [22] Generally, the evidence of CLRA, ICBA and BCCA was aimed at providing me with an understanding of the construction industry,

6 particularly, in their view, of the devastating effect upon the industry as a whole of a requirement to give notice or severance pay to any workers, regardless of the number of sites upon which they worked or the length of employment. [23] The nature of the problem was addressed in general terms by the petitioner as follows: the construction industry is driven by construction projects, obtained through a process of competitive bidding. A construction worker will not know for whom he or she will be working from project to project, and the continued existence of the contractor depends on getting future projects. Even within a single project, it is difficult to determine when a worker will be needed or terminated. That will depend on how the job progresses and whether the schedule is adhered to, a rare occurrence. A contractor cannot say with any certainty when a worker will be laid off, and if notice is given of a date that does not then materialize, new notice would have to be given. [24] As well, a contractor hopes to be able to send employees on to another project. Some contractors will keep a group of core employees on by taking unprofitable jobs to fill in the gap between bigger projects. If a contractor is forced into a competitive disadvantage by having to incorporate an allowance for severance pay into his bid, he will simply respond by refusing to hire workers on successive projects, thus ensuring he can avail himself of the "single site" exemption in Section 65(1)(e) as it was interpreted by the Tribunal. [25] CLRB, ICBA, and BCCA adopted the petitioner's submissions and added to them from their own perspectives. [26] CLRA is the statutorily-appointed bargaining agent for all unionised construction employers who have a bargaining relationship with a trade union representing employees in craft bargaining units in industrial, commercial and institutional construction. [27] According to the affidavit of Robert Morrison, President of CLRA, the employers represented by CLRA obtain workers through union hiring halls. Mr. Morrison states that the use of hiring halls is distinctive to the building trade unionized construction industry. The use of hiring halls by building trade unions fundamentally alters the character of the employment relationship between construction employers and workers. The worker has only a temporary employment relationship with the employer, lasting only while work is available and returns to the hiring hall to be dispatched to the next job. [28] Based on Mr. Morrison's affidavit, counsel for CLRA addressed two specific issues unique to this organization. First, employers represented by CLRA deal with collective agreements which were negotiated on the common understanding that severance pay and notice were not required for any construction workers. Thus, wages and working conditions for construction employees covered by collective agreements are higher than those for similarly skilled workers in other industries. As section 69 of the Act requires collective agreements to "meet or exceed" the requirements of section 63, new requirements would

7 have to be incorporated retroactively into all of the agreements if the Tribunal's decision were upheld. [29] Second, some collective agreements allow employers to "name request" employees from the hiring halls so that the employer can maintain a core group of employees from site to site. If employers are compelled to give notice to a worker who works on more than one site, the employers will not hire a worker on a subsequent site. [30] ICBA is a province-wide not-for-profit association, whose members are primarily open-shop construction contractors in the province of British Columbia i.e., the part of the construction industry, including employers, employees and unions, who operate outside of the traditional building trades craft union "closed-shop" system of construction. These employees are not required to join a particular union in order to be employed, and participation on a given construction site or project is open to all contractors qualified to do the work. Eighty percent of the work in British Columbia is done on an open-shop basis. [31] ICBA's concern, expressed in the affidavit of Philip Hochstein, Executive Vice-President, is that employers will find it impossible to move employees from site to site in order to keep them on on a long term basis. As well, contractors will not be able to assess their labour costs with any certainty, nor can they predict the termination of work for any particular worker in order to give proper notice. The consequences of the Tribunal's decision is that contractors will not be able to retain employees beyond a single project. [32] BCCA is a province-wide association whose members are regional construction associations, representing approximately 1700 companies actively engaged in the construction industry. Those companies include union and non-union construction employers. Their concerns are similar to those of ICBA. [33] BCYT, the union counterpart to CLRA, represents employees in the unionized sector of the construction industry. The construction craft unions which are members of BCYT operate hiring halls through which skilled tradespeople are dispatched to work for unionized construction contractors. The affidavit of Mr. Loftus, Business Representative of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, describes the difference between hiring practices conducted through hiring halls maintained by the unions and those conducted directly by employers. [34] Non-union contractors do not have access to the hiring halls and will frequently maintain a core of skilled workers on the payroll, often for many years. According to Mr. Loftus, these employees have an ongoing employment relationship with a single employer and expect that relationship to continue in the same fashion as long-term employment in other industries. [35] Mr. Loftus states, with examples, that construction rates of pay do not incorporate any compensation for notice of termination, contrary to the statement in Mr. Morrison's affidavit that they do.

8 [36] This review shows that the evidence of the intervenors CLRB, ICBA and BCCA bolsters the submissions of the petitioner, although each group's particular perspective was fleshed out by their respective counsel. [37] The decisions respecting additions to the record in Evans Forest Products and White Spot were made on preliminary motions. In Evans Forest Products, Esson C.J.S.C. refused to strike out certain paragraphs in the affidavit of the petitioner in advance of the hearing. He appeared to accept the possibility that facts directed at establishing the degree of impact of the decision may relate to the discretionary aspects of judicial review and may therefore be relevant, but he declined to reach a conclusion on it until the hearing could be concluded. Whether the impugned paragraphs were ultimately found to be admissible, I do not know. [38] The simple and purist approach is that set out in White Spot. The judicial review must take place on the record. Under that analysis, if the new evidence does not go to the initial assumption of jurisdiction or to a denial of natural justice, it is not admissible on a judicial review. [39] In my view, however justified the affidavits of CLRB, ICBA and BCCA and the views expressed therein might be when taken in the historic and industry context, they should have been before the tribunal. The points made by them were all made by the petitioner, albeit with less specificity. [40] It would be foolish of me to close my eyes to this information completely, however. The Tribunal is permitted to put before me submissions going to the reasonableness of a decision (see reference to Paccar, infra, at para. 49). In defending the decision, particularly in attempting to show that there is a rational basis underlying the distinction made by the Tribunal, they too have had to assume some knowledge of the industry on my part. In that context, I feel bound to consider the information put before me by the intervenors to enable me to understand the argument on the role of historical understandings, practices and interpretations in the industry as it relates, if at all, to the interpretation of s. 65(1)(e). While the information should have been before the Tribunal, the arguments I have heard from all sides on that issue become meaningless if I have no context for them. [41] As the employee himself is not before me, I am of the view that the representations of BCYT are of assistance to the court. The affidavit of Mr. Loftus is mainly a response to the affidavits of Mr. Morrison, Mr. Hochstein, and Mr. MacLeay and is admissible for the limited purpose set out above. [42] I should say that I appreciate the approach taken by counsel with respect to these affidavits. They argued the issue of admissibility, but went on to the merits in any event, thus allowing me time for reflection and the additional perspective gained by being able to consider all of the issues together. ROLE OF THE DIRECTOR AND THE TRIBUNAL

9 [43] Both the Director and the Tribunal are named respondents. Counsel for the Director recognized that her standing to address the issues before the court is limited. While not supporting either petitioner or Tribunal, the Director submitted that it was essential to clarify her statutory role, the process and the policy behind the impugned decision. [44] Counsel explained that the particular issue before the court has not arisen before because of the statutory history of the relevant sections and the existence of collective agreements. She outlined some of the problems facing the Director in applying the present section 65(1)(e), suggesting that there are issues of interpretation upon which I might render assistance. I do not doubt that that the Director has a difficult task in assembling evidence, finding facts, and applying section 65(1)(e) to those facts, particularly in light of the dearth of judicial interpretation and the conflicting views in the industry as reflected in the affidavits of the intervenors and in the Mark Thompson Report. However, each case must be decided on its own facts. It would not be prudent of me to embark on a more general analysis than that called for by the limited question before me. [45] Nor do I see this as an appropriate case to send back for further evidence on any particular issue, if that is what counsel for the Director was suggesting (as was done in Honeywell Ltd. v British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards, [1997] B.C.J. No (Q.L.) (B.C.S.C.)). The Director was able to find that the work done by Mr. Tyler was construction work, that it was done on construction sites, and that the employer was a company whose business is primarily construction. That is sufficient for the present case. [46] No one raised an issue as to the Tribunal's standing. However, I asked counsel for the Tribunal to address it so I could better understand his role, particularly as there was no one before me to advance Mr. Tyler's position. [47] Counsel referred to the following passage from BCGEU v Industrial Relations Council (1988), 33 B.C.L.R. 1 (C.A.), as adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Caimaw, Local 14 v. Paccar of Canada Ltd. (1989), 62 D.L.R. (4th) 437 at 463: The traditional basis for holding that a tribunal should not appear to defend the correctness of its decision has been the feeling that it is unseemly and inappropriate for it to put itself in that position. But when the issue becomes, as it does in relation to the patently unreasonable test, whether the decision was reasonable, there is a powerful policy reason in favour of permitting the tribunal to make submissions. That is, the tribunal is in the best position to draw the attention of the court to those considerations, rooted in the specialised jurisdiction or expertise of the tribunal, which may render reasonable what would otherwise appear unreasonable to someone not versed in the

10 intricacies of the specialised area. In some cases, the parties to the dispute may not adequately place those considerations before the court, either because the parties do not perceive them or do not regard it as being in their interest to stress them. I accept, therefore, that the Tribunal may make submissions going to whether the decision was reasonable. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW [48] The petitioner acknowledges the existence of the broad privative clause in section 110, the high level of deference usually accorded the decisions of the Tribunal, and the usual standard of review as "patent unreasonableness." [49] However, the petitioner argues that the decision of the Tribunal is based only on principles of statutory interpretation, an area with which the court frequently deals. It does not deal with an area in which the Tribunal has any particular expertise. As well, the decision differs from that of the Director, who should be recognized as having a great deal of expertise in the interpretation and application of the legislation. For those reasons, the petitioner says a lesser standard of deference is appropriate in this particular case. [50] According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Pushpanathan v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1998), 160 DLR (4 th ) 193, the central inquiry in determining the standard of review exercisable by a court of law is the legislative intent of the statute creating the tribunal whose decision is being reviewed. More specifically, the reviewing court must ask: "was the question which the provision raises one that was intended by the legislators to be left to the exclusive decision of the Board?" (p. 588). [51] The Supreme Court of Canada lists the factors to be taken into account in determining the standard of review: [52] 1. The existence of a privative clause. The privative clause here is broad: 110. A decision or order of the tribunal under this Act or the regulations on any matter in which it has jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in a court on any grounds. [53] I do not read the words "in which it has jurisdiction" as limiting the scope of this clause in any material way, as the petitioner suggests. Obviously the section can only protect the Tribunal while it is acting within its jurisdiction. This does not lessen the level of deference to be accorded to its decisions, nor does it prevent the court from quashing a decision which purports to interpret and extend the section beyond its legislative bounds, if that is indeed what occurred here.

11 [54] 2. Expertise. I do not have any particular evidence before me as to the level of expertise of the Tribunal, but they had before them the decisions of the Director and adjudicator, submissions of the petitioner, and at least portions of the Mark Thompson Report. The legislature set up this Tribunal in 1995 in order to deal with appeals from the Director that used to come to this court. The very creation of the Tribunal and the statutory scheme under which it operates creates a presumption of expertise in the area of employment standards and the applicability of the Act. That it was thought necessary to put such detailed and extensive information before me so that I might understand the construction industry is further support for the proposition that the legislature intended to have these matters dealt with by a Tribunal with specialized expertise. [55] 3. Purpose of the Act and the particular provision. In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re) (1998), 154 D.L.R. (4th) 192, the Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing with similar provisions in the Ontario Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 137, referred to its previous remarks in Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 SCR 986, stating at para 24 and 25 (of Rizzo): [The object of the Act is] the protection of "...the interests of employees by requiring employers to comply with certain minimum standards, including minimum periods of notice of termination"... The objects of the termination and severance pay provisions themselves are also broadly premised upon the need to protect employees. [56] Those remarks are applicable to the British Columbia provisions as well. [57] The Supreme Court of Canada said in Pushpanathan, at 212: Where the purposes of the statute and of the decision-maker are conceived not primarily in terms of establishing rights as between parties, or as entitlements, but rather as a delicate balancing between different constituencies, then the appropriateness of court supervision diminishes. [58] The Tribunal has been charged with the responsibility of balancing the rights of employers and employees, taking into account the broad considerations set out in section 2 of the Act. Those relevant here are: (a) to ensure that employees in British Columbia receive at least basic standards of compensation and conditions of employment; (b) to promote the fair treatment of employees and employers;

12 (d) to provide fair and efficient procedures for resolving disputes over the application and interpretation of this act; (e) to foster the development of a productive and efficient labour force that can contribute fully to the prosperity of British Columbia. [59] 4. The "Nature of the Problem": A Question of Law or Fact? According to Pushpanathan, while even pure questions of law may be granted a wide degree of deference, the further the implications of a decision stray from the core expertise of the Tribunal, the less likelihood deference will be shown. [60] Here, the decision to be made involves the applicability of a section of the Act to certain facts in a dispute arising out of the termination of employment. While characterized by the petitioner as an issue of pure statutory interpretation, the arguments which I have been asked to consider have, at their heart, the competing interests and realities of the various components of the construction industry. [61] Although the Tribunal approached its task by using the principles of statutory interpretation, I do not see what other course was open to it. It was asked to consider whether the exemption in section 65(1)(e) applied to the situation before it and was thus bound to undertake that inquiry. The job it is entrusted to do under the statute requires such analysis on a frequent basis. While the court will look closely at questions of statutory interpretation to see if the Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction by purporting to legislate or to negate the intention of the legislature, the potential for such scrutiny does not lessen the standard of review. [62] After a consideration of all of the factors outlined in Pushpanathan as they apply to the legislative scheme before me, I accept that the decision of the Tribunal is to be accorded a high level of deference and that the appropriate standard of review is one of "patent unreasonableness." WAS THE DECISION PATENTLY UNREASONABLE? [63] In Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 SCR 941, the court said, at page 190-1:...it is apparent that if the decision the Board reached, acting within its jurisdiction, is not clearly irrational, that is to say evidently not in accordance with reason, then it cannot be said that there was a loss of jurisdiction. This is clearly a very strict test....

13 It is not enough that the decision of the Board is wrong in the eyes of the court; it must, in order to be patently unreasonable, be found by the court to be clearly irrational. [64] The petitioner contends, supported by CLRB, ICBA and BCCA, that the decision of the Tribunal is patently unreasonable because it has purported to legislate which it must not do (see Pacific Press Ltd. v. Vancouver-New Westminster Newspaper Guild, Local 115 et al. (1989), 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 339 (B.C.C.A.), and B.C.G.E.U. v. Industrial Relations Council (1988), 33 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 (B.C.C.A.),- the "Verrin" decision). In support of this proposition, the petitioner says the Tribunal ignored the legislative history, the previous interpretations of the statute by the Director, the understandings, expectations and practices of the industry, and the purposes of the Act, improperly importing factors such as subjective fairness and employee expectations into the section. Further, the Tribunal misunderstood or misapplied the Mark Thompson Report and its relation to the subsequent legislation, thus leading itself into an error of statutory interpretation. [65] The affidavits filed by CLRB, ICBA and BCCA make it clear that their organizations have always construed the exemption to be industry wide, and have relied on that continued interpretation by the Director. CLRB and ICBA made submissions to Commissioner Thompson to ensure the "construction exemption" remained unchanged. [66] It is the petitioner's position that the intent of the legislature can be clearly understood by looking at the Mark Thompson Report, commissioned by them to examine these very issues. [67] Part VII of the report deals with termination of employment. Commissioner Thompson noted that there were few suggestions for change in the present system governing individual employees; group terminations attracted more attention. [68] Under the heading "Individual Termination", the report states at page 144: A few employers outside of the construction industry who rely upon hiring halls wondered if the severance pay provision would cover them when their employees were laid off and returned to their hiring halls. The Commission received a brief from a group of construction unions requesting removal of the exemption for their industry, a suggestion employers rejected vigorously. [69] The report then goes on to state at page 146: Section 43(b) of the Act may well cover employers who are not in the construction industry and rely upon hiring halls to recruit employees. Nevertheless, the language of that

14 section of the Act is open to several interpretations and should be clarified. [70] The report then recommends that the Act should provide that employers and employees who rely on hiring halls for the short-term dispatch and recall of workers should not be covered by the termination provisions in section 42 of the Act, as it then was. At p. 146 it states: Current exclusions from the termination provisions of the Act reflect the realities of the industries affected. Majority sentiment in these industries is to leave the exclusions in the Regulation. In all cases, the exclusions reflect special conditions of these groups. The Commission respects the parties' views and does not recommend any change in the status quo. [71] Under the heading of "Group Termination", the following statement appears at page 152: The Commission notes that the exemption for the construction industry is in the Regulation for individual termination and in Section 49.2(e) of the Act for group terminations. That inconsistency should be corrected. The commission notes that this exclusion is very broad. Many workers in the construction industry work on a short-term basis and the industry is organised around intermittent employment. Workers are often compensated in their wages for the employment insecurity they face. On the other hand, workers in some branches of the industry are not paid for insecurity and construction employers may retain a core of permanent employees between projects. As the law and Regulation now stand, these employees are not covered by the termination provisions. In the course of eliminating the inconsistency of treatment of construction workers in the Act where it covers terminations, the government may wish to examine the specific circumstances of that industry and grant more specific exemptions in accord with the recommended procedures. [emphasis added] [72] It is the petitioner's contention that the legislature, having been given the Commissioner's views that the exemption described by him was very broad and should be examined, nevertheless did not change the wording in section 65(1)(e) from that contained in the old Regulation 10. From this, one must infer that the legislative intent was to leave the exemption broad enough to cover both short-term workers on one site and those workers who were retained by employers between projects. The

15 petitioner says the legislative intent was ignored by the Tribunal, thus rendering their decision patently unreasonable. [73] The relevant portion of the Tribunal's reasons is as follows: DEM has raised a significant issue of law that compels a review because of the importance of the interpretation of this section to the parties and the implications this determination will have for future cases.... We do not take issue with DEM's argument that the plain reading of the legislation states that once an employee is found to be employed at a construction site, and the employer's principal business is construction, the termination pay provision do not apply. However, the evidence is that Tyler worked continuously for DEM at many construction sites, not just one. The evidence is also that he worked on a number of other job sites for DEM that were not construction sites. Exceptions to benefit-conferring legislation must be narrowly interpreted. Section 65(1)(e) refers to a construction site, not to construction workers, as DEM argues, nor does it include "persons working on construction sites" as the delegate concluded. In our view, this section is designed to provide relief from the termination pay provision for employers to the extent that they employ workers to work on a single construction project. However, where an employer has many construction and renovation projects, and an employee is continuously employed by that employer, we are of the view, as the Adjudicator was, that the exception from the termination provision does not apply. We have arrived at this conclusion based on the strict wording of the legislation, as well as the principle that exceptions should be narrowly construed, and the interpretation and application of the Act should be consistent with its objectives and purpose. The purposes of the Act include ensuring that employees in British Columbia receive at least basic standards of compensation and conditions of employment, and to promote the fair treatment of employees and employers....

16 DEM also contends that the legislature had the opportunity to amend or eliminate the exemptions which were part of the old Act and Regulations in DEM contends that the legislature chose not to do that but, rather, to preserve the status quo recommended by Professor Thompson at p. 146 of his report. We do not consider the report to have recommended the status quo at all. Professor Thompson said that "exceptions should be limited" (at p. 29), that "coverage be more inclusive" and "apply as broadly as possible" (at p. 31). While we agree that he recommended that there be no change to the status quo at p. 146, we note that he was referring specifically to "employers and employees who rely on hiring halls", not a person in Tyler's situation. Moreover, the panel notes that "an employee employed in the construction industry" was exempt from the group termination provisions under the old Act and that the legislature chose not to adopt that broad working, wording that, had it been adopted, would have provided for an exemption for construction workers. In choosing wording that refers to a construction site, the legislature maintained the exemption for employees like those hired through hiring halls, employees that are employed to work on a single construction site and know that, once the work is complete, their employment will be terminated. DEM contends that s. 65(1)(e) provides for something different through 65(1)(b) and (c). We agree. Section 65(1)(e) governs employees that are not employed for a definite term but an indefinite term, and employees that are not employed for specific work which must be completed within a 12 month period but work which may last far longer than that. The panel finds that to interpret this section in the manner urged by DEM would, violate the spirit and intent of the Act to deprive workers of their rights on termination. Tyler's employment did not fall within those categories of employment exempted in sections 63 through 65. As an employee of some permanence who was not employed to work on a single site, we find that he is entitled to the protection of the Act. [74] Counsel for the Tribunal and BCYT argue that the distinction made by the Tribunal is not arbitrary or irrational. They argue that the interpretation by the Tribunal is in accord with the purposes of this

17 legislation as set out in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes, supra. That case supports a broad interpretation leading to wide protection of employees, with narrow exemptions, and would resolve ambiguities in favour of the claimant. As well, the decision reflects a recognition of a meaningful distinction in the industry, that is a distinction between employees who work on a short term basis and are compensated for employment insecurity, and those employees who are retained between projects on a permanent basis. This distinction is one recognized by the Mark Thompson Report in the passage set in paragraph 71 above. [75] It is apparent from the submissions of the petitioner, the remarks in the Mark Thompson Report and the decision of the Director, that the construction industry has operated under the assumption that it was, in its entirety, exempted from the notice provisions of the Act. However, no one could point to any authority or for doing so, other than convention and practice. [76] Section 37(3) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C c. 238, reads: An amendment, consolidation, re-enactment or revision of an enactment must not be construed to be or to involve an adoption of the construction that has by judicial decision or otherwise been placed on the language used in the enactment or on similar language. [77] I accept the contention of the Tribunal and BCYT that, while it is open to me to find that section 65(1)(e) has the meaning ascribed to the prior Regulation 10 by the Mark Thompson Report, the Director and the industry, I must not construe it in that way simply because that was the meaning given to it previously. In other words, I cannot draw a conclusion one way or another from a prior construction. [78] I was referred to the employment standards legislation from various jurisdictions in Canada to show that other provinces, particularly Ontario, have accepted work location in the construction industry, not number of sites or length of employment, as the determining factor for an exemption (see Boyd v. Culliton Brothers Ltd., [1995] O.J. No (Q.L.) (Gen. Div.)). In Scapillati v. A. Potvin Construction Ltd., [1999] O.J. No (Q.L.), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that it was reasonable not to give notice of termination to an employee in the construction industry, based largely on the same type of arguments advanced before me by the petitioner and intervenors. [79] These decisions support the petitioner's contention as to the industry understanding and expectation. However, none of the other legislative schemes or cases decided under them is of assistance in determining the issue before me, which involves a review of the decision of the Tribunal, rather than an interpretation by this court at first instance. [80] Counsel for ICBA took me through the legislation and the use of the word "a" to demonstrate that its use is simply as an article and

18 not a numerical indicator. However, I do not think it can be said that it is "clearly irrational" or "patently unreasonable" to interpret the words "a site" in section 65(1)(e) to mean "a single site" as opposed to "one or more sites," when taken in the context of the whole of the Tribunal's reasons. [81] While this judgment was under reserve, section 28(3) of the Interpretation Act came to my attention. It reads: (3) In an enactment words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. [82] I sent a memorandum through the Registry asking counsel if they wished to address this section, as it had not been raised in argument before me or before the Tribunal. I have now received submissions from all parties. The petitioner and intervenors submit this section is dispositive of this case. The Tribunal and the Director caution against my taking into account something that was not before the Tribunal and interpreting the Act myself. The question in my mind was not whether I should now embark on an analysis of section 65(1)(e) in light of section 28(3) of the Interpretation Act, but whether I should direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in light of this section pursuant to section 5 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, although such an approach was not suggested by counsel, and if I did not direct it back, whether the failure to consider the section rendered the decision patently unreasonable. [83] I have decided not to direct the matter back, and have come to the conclusion that the failure to consider section 28(3) of the Interpretation Act does not render the decision patently unreasonable. While I am troubled by the emphasis in the Tribunal's decision of their view of legislative intention, a view which is not necessarily supported when section 28(3)is considered, the Interpretation Act only governs where a contrary intention does not appear in the relevant statute (see section 2(1) of that Act). In Bank of Canada v Gratton [1987] BCJ No (B.C.C.A.), the court said, while considering the effect of section 2(1) on section 28(3): The contrary intention need not be found in the express words, but may be inferred from the scheme of the enactment, its legislative history and other circumstances which surround the use of the word in question. [84] Thus it appears that section 28(3) does not set out a hard and fast interpretative rule; it provides a caution that, in the absence of contextual factors suggesting otherwise, the legislative drafter's choice of a plural or singular term is not semantically significant. Taking the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, it is evident they were purporting to interpret the words in section 65(1)(e) in their "entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of [the Legislature]" (see Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes, supra, p. 87). That the portion of their judgment referring to legislative intention does not include a

19 reference to section 28(3) does not invalidate the Tribunal's interpretation nor does it render it patently unreasonable. [85] Moreover, it is not an answer to the Tribunal's failure to consider that particular legislative provision for me to embark on my own analysis of it and its applicability to section 65(1)(e) under the guise of affirming the Director's decision, which is the second part of the relief sought in the petition. I was referred to no authority which would allow me to affirm the decision of a statutory authority not under review, and to do so would entail an analysis of the issues in a manner reserved by the Legislature for the Tribunal. This is not consistent with this court's role on judicial review. CONCLUSION [86] Taking all of this into account, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to be clearly irrational, nor is it an attempt to legislate or negate the legislative will. The decision is not contrary to the objects of this type of legislation as enunciated in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes. It accords with the Supreme Court of Canada's statement that the legislation must be interpreted liberally, with ambiguities resolved in favour of the worker. It is not contrary to the expressed purposes of the Act as set out in section 2 thereof. It reflects a meaningful distinction in the industry, one which was in fact raised in the Mark Thompson Report. [87] While there is a good argument that employees of long-standing who have worked on many projects are not entitled to notice because of the wording of section 65(1)(e), that argument was made before the Tribunal and considered and rejected in its reasons. If I were to adopt the positions put forward by the petitioner and the relevant intervenors, I would, in my view, be entering into an area which the legislature has reserved for the Tribunal. In other words, I would be enforcing another view of the industry and of the practical issues facing construction contractors simply because I might have decided the matter differently. [88] It remains to be seen how the Tribunal will apply the section in future appeals. On the facts of Mr. Tyler's case, no obvious unfairness arises, but there are instances where the Tribunal's present interpretation will give rise to illogical and inconsistent results. One of the most obvious is that raised by counsel for CLRA - a worker who stays on one project for 18 months is not entitled to notice, whereas a worker who is moved to a variety of sites in a shorter time period is so entitled. The Act requires more specificity if such outcomes are to be avoided. This was, as I have noted, recognized by Mr. Thompson and recommended in his report. [89] However, it is not up to the court to rewrite legislation to make the necessary changes, either adding specificity or clarifying the wording so that the exemption is without doubt a blanket one. That task lies with the legislature. [90] In the result, the petition is dismissed. I am indebted to all counsel for their thorough submissions and patient assistance in

20 acquainting me with the issues. If there is a need to address costs, counsel may do so through the Registry. "M.A. Humphries, J." The Honourable Madam Justice M.A. Humphries

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver

More information

2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd.

2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. 2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al, 2007 BCSC 569 Date: 20070426 Docket: S056479 Registry: Vancouver

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cariboo Gur Sikh Temple Society (1979) v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2016 BCSC 1622 Between: Cariboo Gur Sikh Temple Society (1979)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2011 BCSC 112 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Information a... Page 1 of 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And British Columbia (Attorney General)

More information

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007 Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Scott v. British Columbia (The Police Complaint Commissioner), 2017 BCSC 961 Jason Scott Date: 20170609 Docket: S164838 Registry: Vancouver

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bentley v. The Police Complaint Commissioner, 2012 BCSC 106 Craig Bentley and John Grywinski Date: 20120125 Docket: S110977 Registry: Vancouver

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20120215 Docket: CA039639 Ingrid Andrea Franzke And Appellant (Petitioner) Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable

More information

Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective

Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective These materials were prepared by Thora Sigurdson of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: R. v. Plummer, 2017 BCSC 1579 Date: 20170906 Docket: 27081 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Scott Plummer Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bowden

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br... Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith

More information

Order COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Order COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Order 02-35 COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner July 16, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 35 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order02-35.pdf

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Burnaby (City) v. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2014 BCCA 465 City of Burnaby Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC The National Energy Board

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Geller v. Sable Resources Ltd., 2014 BCSC 171 Date: 20140203 Docket: S108380 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Jan Geller Sable Resources Ltd. Plaintiff

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253. v. Tourism Nova Scotia LIBRARY HEADING

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253. v. Tourism Nova Scotia LIBRARY HEADING SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 253 Date: 2016-09-26 Docket: Hfx No. 453012 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Book v. Tourism Nova Scotia Applicant Respondent

More information

Page: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref

Page: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref COURT FILE NO.: 68/04 DATE: 20050214 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT LANE, MATLOW and GROUND JJ. 2005 CanLII 3384 (ON SCDC B E T W E E N: Patrick Boland Appellant (Plaintiff - and -

More information

SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE

SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE Larry Seiferling, Q.C., Partner, McDougall Gauley LLP Angela Giroux, Associate, McDougall Gauley LLP (a) Introduction There are few, if any, issues that have arisen

More information

Standing: The Role of Administrative Tribunals on Judicial Review. Vancouver, British Columbia. May 9, 2013

Standing: The Role of Administrative Tribunals on Judicial Review. Vancouver, British Columbia. May 9, 2013 Standing: The Role of Administrative Tribunals on Judicial Review Vancouver, British Columbia May 9, 2013 Master Heather MacNaughton, Supreme Court of British Columbia Jessica Connell, Counsel, British

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF

More information

Decision F08-07 MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND CITIZENS SERVICES. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. July 24, 2008

Decision F08-07 MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND CITIZENS SERVICES. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. July 24, 2008 Decision F08-07 MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND CITIZENS SERVICES David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner July 24, 2008 Quicklaw Cite: [2008] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 25 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionf08-07.pdf

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: The Law Society of British Columbia v. Parsons, 2015 BCSC 742 Date: 20150506 Docket: S151214 Registry: Vancouver Between: The Law Society of British Columbia

More information

Order F14-57 OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER. Ross Alexander Adjudicator. December 23, 2014

Order F14-57 OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER. Ross Alexander Adjudicator. December 23, 2014 Order F14-57 OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER Ross Alexander Adjudicator December 23, 2014 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 61 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 61 Summary: A journalist requested

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: 20111230 Docket: CA039373 Meah Bartram, an Infant by her Mother and Litigation Guardian,

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Larc Developments Ltd. v. Levelton Engineering Ltd., 2010 BCCA 18 Commonwealth Insurance Company Larc Developments Ltd. and Rita A. Carle Date:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and

More information

CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch

CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch May 8, 2018 Introduction In April 2012, the government of British Columbia

More information

British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law

British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications (Emeriti) 2004 British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law Robin Elliot Allard School of Law at the University

More information

Financial Services Tribunal

Financial Services Tribunal Financial Services Tribunal Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 FST

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1499 Date: 20130819 Docket: S130604 Registry: Vancouver Tatiana Gorenshtein

More information

Order F05-25 MINISTRY OF HEALTH. Errol Nadeau, Adjudicator. August 10, 2005

Order F05-25 MINISTRY OF HEALTH. Errol Nadeau, Adjudicator. August 10, 2005 Order F05-25 MINISTRY OF HEALTH Errol Nadeau, Adjudicator August 10, 2005 Quicklaw Cite: [2005] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 33 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/orderf05-33.pdf Office URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bates v. John Bishop Jewellers Limited, 2009 BCSC 158 Errol Bates John Bishop Jewellers Limited Date: 20090212 Docket: S082271 Registry:

More information

Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia DECISION NO. 2017-HPA-006(a) October 5, 2017 In

More information

BETWEEN: MORGAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

BETWEEN: MORGAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN THE MATTER OF THE FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT, RSBC 1996, c. 131 AND IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT BY MORGAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF PROPANE CANNONS

More information

Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING. Chelsea Lott Adjudicator. July 9, 2018

Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING. Chelsea Lott Adjudicator. July 9, 2018 Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING Chelsea Lott Adjudicator July 9, 2018 CanLII Cite: 2018 BCIPC 28 Quicklaw Cite: [2018] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 28 Summary: Order F16-24 authorized

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Choi v. Brook at the Village on False Creek Developments Corp., 2013 BCSC 1535 Bok J. Choi, Il Ho Ahn and Ra Young Choi, Yen Hai Doan, Tian

More information

CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE:

CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: 20151218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS, Applicant

More information

Page: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the

Page: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: Homes by Avi Ltd. v. Alberta (Workers Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), 2007 ABQB 203 Date: 20070326 Docket: 0603 14909, 0603 14405, 0603 12833 Registry:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION

More information

Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. May 11, 2017

Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. May 11, 2017 Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Celia Francis Adjudicator May 11, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 31 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 31 Summary: An applicant requested access to records

More information

Reasons: Decisons, Orders and Rulings

Reasons: Decisons, Orders and Rulings Chapter 3 Reasons: Decisons, Orders Rulings 3.1 Reasons 2.1.1 Judith Marcella Manning, Timothy Edward Manning, William Douglas Elik, Mary Martha Fritz Jill Christine Bolton COURT FILE NO: 784/95 787/95

More information

Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir

Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Sahyoun v. British Columbia (Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal), 2012 BCSC 1306 Dr. Nabil Riad Sahyoun Employment and Assistance

More information

Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010

Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010 Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator January 7, 2010 Quicklaw Cite: [2010] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2010 BCIPC 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/orderf10-01.pdf

More information

BETWEEN: MONEY'S MUSHROOMS LTD. APPELLANT AND: BRITISH COLUMBIA MUSHROOM MARKETING BOARD RESPONDENT RIDGE MUSHROOMS INC.

BETWEEN: MONEY'S MUSHROOMS LTD. APPELLANT AND: BRITISH COLUMBIA MUSHROOM MARKETING BOARD RESPONDENT RIDGE MUSHROOMS INC. IN THE MATTER OF THE NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING (BC) ACT AND AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA MUSHROOM MARKETING BOARD DATED AUGUST 6,1998 BETWEEN: MONEY'S MUSHROOMS LTD. APPELLANT AND:

More information

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTEREST ARBITRATION UNDER THE FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, R.S.B.C, 1996 c. 142 VANCOUVER POLICE BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTEREST ARBITRATION UNDER THE FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, R.S.B.C, 1996 c. 142 VANCOUVER POLICE BOARD IN THE MATTER OF AN INTEREST ARBITRATION UNDER THE FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, R.S.B.C, 1996 c. 142 BETWEEN: VANCOUVER POLICE BOARD (the Police Board ) AND: VANCOUVER POLICE UNION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: Docket: Registry: Kelowna 2006 BCSC 1357

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: Docket: Registry: Kelowna 2006 BCSC 1357 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: 20060901 Docket: 57596 Registry: Kelowna Ronda Petra Black Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Humphries

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2016 BCCA 457 Tatiana Gorenshtein and ICN Consulting Inc. Employment Standards

More information

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014 Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator October 3, 2014 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 47 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 47 Summary: The applicant, on behalf of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Re: Section 29 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Registration of a Foreign Judgment Against John Tolman, Mrs. John Tolman, Bob Alpen and Mrs. Bob Alpen

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date: 19980710 Docket: S046974 Registry: New Westminster IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DEREK PAGET AND PAKAR HOMES LTD. PETITIONER AND: VERNOR KARPINSKI RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

More information

The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008

The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 MANAGING YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES AS TRIBUNAL COUNSEL By Gilbert Van Nes, General Counsel & Settlement Officer Alberta Environmental

More information

CLAIMANTS' REPLY TO UNITED STATES' ANSWERS TO THE TRIBUNAL'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO THE BYRD AMENDMENT

CLAIMANTS' REPLY TO UNITED STATES' ANSWERS TO THE TRIBUNAL'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO THE BYRD AMENDMENT UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CANFOR CORPORATION and TERMINAL FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. Investors (Claimants) v. UNITED STATES OF

More information

By March 16, Labour Relations Code Review Panel. Panel Members: Barry Dong Michael Fleming Sandra Banister, Q.C.

By   March 16, Labour Relations Code Review Panel. Panel Members: Barry Dong Michael Fleming Sandra Banister, Q.C. Executive Offices fax: 604-871-2290 By email: LRCReview@gov.ba.ca. Labour Relations Code Review Panel Panel Members: Barry Dong Michael Fleming Sandra Banister, Q.C., Dear Panel Members: Subject: B.C.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard

More information

BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS AND ISSUES. Sandra Carter & Pam Jefcoat. Valkyrie Law Group LLP. October 2009

BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS AND ISSUES. Sandra Carter & Pam Jefcoat. Valkyrie Law Group LLP. October 2009 BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS AND ISSUES Sandra Carter & Pam Jefcoat Valkyrie Law Group LLP October 2009 This paper reviews certain aspects of the role and jurisdiction of the Board of Variance (the Board )

More information

The Advocate for Children and Youth Act

The Advocate for Children and Youth Act 1 The Advocate for Children and Youth Act being Chapter A-5.4* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2012 (effective September 1, 2012), as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2014, c.e-13.1; 2015, c.16;

More information

ASSESSOR OF AREA 12 TRICITIES/NORTHEAST FRASER VALLEY GREAT NORTHERN & PACIFIC HEALTH CARE ENTERPRISES INC.

ASSESSOR OF AREA 12 TRICITIES/NORTHEAST FRASER VALLEY GREAT NORTHERN & PACIFIC HEALTH CARE ENTERPRISES INC. The following version is for informational purposes only, for the official version see: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/ for Stated Cases see also: http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/ for Property Assessment

More information

CITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

CITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-569192 DATE: 20171020 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ANNABELLE NOGUEIRA, Plaintiff AND THE SECOND CUP LTD., Defendant BEFORE:

More information

Case Name: Timberwest Forest Co. v. United Steelworkers, Local (Woodlands Letter Grievance)

Case Name: Timberwest Forest Co. v. United Steelworkers, Local (Woodlands Letter Grievance) Page 1 Case Name: Timberwest Forest Co. v. United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937 (Woodlands Letter Grievance) IN THE MATTER OF an Arbitration under the British Columbia Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE

More information

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625 v. Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, 2016 NSSC 242

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625 v. Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, 2016 NSSC 242 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625 v. Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, 2016 NSSC 242 Date: 20160915 Docket: HFX443975/446485 Registry: Halifax

More information

Ahmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v. Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] APP.L.R. 01/28

Ahmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v. Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] APP.L.R. 01/28 CA on Appeal from High Court of Justice TCC (HHJ Bowsher QC) before Waller LJ; Chadwick LJ. 28 th January 2000. JUDGMENT : Lord Justice Waller: 1. This is an appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND -

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND - Ontario Commission des P.O. Box 55, 19 th Floor CP 55, 19e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN

More information

Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)

Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Page 1 Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Cuddy Chicks Limited, appellant; v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local

More information

The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement

The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement Submissions to Mr. David Perry Jessica Clogg, Staff Counsel West Coast Environmental Law JUNE 30, 1999 Introduction The following submissions build upon and clarify

More information

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment 1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose

More information

Order SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Order SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Order 01-16 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner April 20, 2001 Quicklaw Cite: [2001] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 17 Order URL: http://www.oipcbc.org/orders/order01-16.html

More information

Administrative Law Update Adele J. Adamic Legal Services Branch, Ministry of Justice BC Council of Administrative Tribunals.

Administrative Law Update Adele J. Adamic Legal Services Branch, Ministry of Justice BC Council of Administrative Tribunals. Administrative Law Update 2015 Adele J. Adamic Legal Services Branch, Ministry of Justice BC Council of Administrative Tribunals 1 Annual Conference Administrative Law is not for sissies Hon. Antonin Scalia,

More information

Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation)

Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) May 2013 Municipal Law Section Substantial and Unreasonable Injurious Affection after Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation) By Scott McAnsh Antrim Truck Stop is located just off Highway

More information

Order VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT. Celia Francis, Adjudicator September 1, 2004

Order VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT. Celia Francis, Adjudicator September 1, 2004 Order 04-20 VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT Celia Francis, Adjudicator September 1, 2004 Quicklaw Cite: [2004] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 20 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order04-20.pdf Office URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca

More information

Research ranc. i1i~ EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION. Philip Rosen Law and Government Division. 22 February 1989

Research ranc. i1i~ EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION. Philip Rosen Law and Government Division. 22 February 1989 Mini-Review MR-29E EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION Philip Rosen Law and Government Division 22 February 1989 A i1i~ ~10000 ~i;~ I Bibliothèque du Parlement Research ranc The Research

More information

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. FI Re: Department of Communities, Land, and Environment

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. FI Re: Department of Communities, Land, and Environment OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island Order No. FI-16-004 Re: Department of Communities, Land, and Environment Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner

More information

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO DECISION

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO DECISION HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO B E T W E E N: Amanda Kerr Applicant -and- Global TeleSales of Canada Inc. Respondent DECISION Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 9, 2012 File Number: 2011-09375-I Citation:

More information

THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND CONSTABULARY PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION CST. EDMUND OATES

THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND CONSTABULARY PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION CST. EDMUND OATES IN THE MATTER OF s. 28 of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, S.N.L. 1992, c. R-17, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF a Complaint by Wayne Thompson, dated 8 August, 2001 BETWEEN: THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY Citation: Between: And And Yukon v. McBee, 2010 YKCA 8 Government of Yukon Yukon Human Rights Commission Donna McBee a.k.a. Donna Molloy and Yukon Human Rights Board

More information

ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE NOVEMBER 29, 2013.

ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE NOVEMBER 29, 2013. ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE NOVEMBER 29, 2013 Bill Buholzer 1 ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL

More information

Order F12-12 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. Catherine Boies Parker, Adjudicator. August 23, 2012

Order F12-12 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. Catherine Boies Parker, Adjudicator. August 23, 2012 Order F12-12 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Catherine Boies Parker, Adjudicator August 23, 2012 Quicklaw Cite: [2012] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 17 CanLII Cite: 2012 BCIPC No. 17 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2012/orderf12-12.pdf

More information

Indexed as: Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) Between Sandringham Place Inc. et al., and Ontario Human Rights Commission

Indexed as: Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) Between Sandringham Place Inc. et al., and Ontario Human Rights Commission Indexed as: Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) Between Sandringham Place Inc. et al., and Ontario Human Rights Commission [2001] O.J. No. 2733 202 D.L.R. (4th) 301 148 O.A.C. 280

More information

Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000

Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT COURT FILE NO.: 29/07, 30/07 DATE: 20090306 HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ. B E T W E E N: COMMISSIONER AND JANE DOE, AND B E T W E E N:

More information

Larry Nicholas Estabrooks, Director of Consumer Affairs,

Larry Nicholas Estabrooks, Director of Consumer Affairs, Citation : Estabrooks v. New Brunswick (Director of Consumer Affairs), 2016 NBFCST 11 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS ACT, S.N.B.

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCCA 283 Date: 20180709 Dockets:

More information

Income Security Advocacy Centre/ Centre d action pour la sécurité du revenu

Income Security Advocacy Centre/ Centre d action pour la sécurité du revenu Income Security Advocacy Centre/ Centre d action pour la sécurité du revenu Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy Legislative Hearings on Bill 107 An Act to Amend the Ontario Human Rights

More information

VIA August 7, Mr. John R. Cusano Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 1600, th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 4K9

VIA  August 7, Mr. John R. Cusano Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 1600, th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 4K9 ERICA HAMILTON COMMISSION SECRETARY Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com website: http://www.bcuc.com SIXTH FLOOR, 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 VANCOUVER, BC CANADA V6Z 2N3 TELEPHONE: (604) 660-4700 BC TOLL FREE:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. - and

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. - and COURT FILE NO. 36300 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL - and FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY, KATRINA

More information

Interpretation of Delegated Legislation

Interpretation of Delegated Legislation Interpretation of Delegated Legislation Matt Black Barrister-at-Law A seminar paper prepared for the Legalwise seminar Administrative Law: Statutory Interpretation and Judicial Review 22 November 2017

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova

More information

GLAHOLT LLP CONSTRUCTION LAWYERS

GLAHOLT LLP CONSTRUCTION LAWYERS Choosing Arbitration Arbitration of construction industry disputes is: Based on contract. The power of an arbitrator, or arbitration panel, to decide your dispute must be granted to the arbitrator by the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. (Re), 2018 BCSC 1135 Date: 20180709 Docket: S1510120 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Companies Creditors

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development v. Langley (Township), 2013 BCSC 2273 Date: 20131211 Docket: S26696 Registry: Chilliwack

More information

Order F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015

Order F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015 Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry

More information

Report A August 17, Legal Aid Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador

Report A August 17, Legal Aid Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador eport A-2018-019 August 17, 2018 Legal Aid Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador Summary: The Applicant requested from the Legal Aid Commission invoices and details of payments to lawyers from the private

More information

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information

More information